
Book Sb I^J 



si 



5- 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN 
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS 



HEARINGS '^ 



BEFORE COMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS 
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 



JANUARY 16, 20, 21, 22, AND 23, 1908 



WASHINGTON 

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

1908 



^' 3>rovr 



_^ S6- 



F 



i^ 1/ u o 



D, Of 0, 







CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



Committee on Insular Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, January 16, 1908. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry Allen Cooper, 
chairman, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. JOHN A. HULL, JUDGE-ADVOCATE, 
UNITED STATES ARMY. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen of the committee : This morning we are 
to hear testimony concerning the proposed bill — there has been no 
bill yet introduced, but we expect that one will be — ;to pay the so- 
called Catholic Church claims of the Philippine Islands. Claims 
have been filed by the Catholic Church in the Philippine Islands for 
damages done to church property and for use and occupancy by our 
military forces of the church property in the Philippine Islands dur- 
ing the insurrection. Colonel Hull, will you give your name in full ? 

Lieutenant- Colonel Hull. John A. Hull. 

The Chairman. What is 5^ our rank? 

Colonel Hull. Lieutenant-colonel, judge-advocate, United States 
Army. 

The Chairman. Where are you now stationed? 

Colonel Hull. At Governors Island, New York. 

The Chairman. How long have you been stationed there ? 

Colonel Hull. I have been there since SejDtember 16, 1907. 

The Chairman. How long have you been judge-advocate ? 

Colonel Hull. Since May 9, 1898. 

The Chairman. Have you done service in the Philippine Islands? 

Colonel Hull. I have served two terms in the Philippines. 

The Chairman. When did you first go there ? 

Colonel Hull. I landed there on the 3d of March, 1899, and left 
there on September 23, 1900. On my second tour I landed January 
27, 1905, and left there January 15, 1907. 

The Chairman. You have traversed t|ie archipelago thoroughly, 
have you ? 

Colonel Hull. To a considerable extent, for an officer whose duties 
have required him to be in Manila. I have traveled the islands in 
connection with the Catholic Church claims and in connection with 
the suits growing out of military reservations, both items of which 
were under my control. 

I- : I , 1 



2 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. Were you a member of a board of officers which 
convened at Manila under instructions of the War Department to 
consider the Catholic Church claims? 

Colonel Hull. I was; I was president of that board. 

The Chairman. Of whom did the board consist ? 

Colonel Hull. It first consisted of myself, Colonel Brodie, and 
Major Gibson. Afterwards Major Gibson Avas ordered to St. Peters- 
burg as military attache and Lieutenant Moore, of the Second Cav- 
alry, was put in his place. In the additional proceedings, as Lieu- 
tenant Moore was then in United States, Major Gallagher was de- 
tailed to complete the board. I might state that before the receipt of 
the instructions of the War Department to convene a board the 
commanding general. General Corbin, had received instructions to 
receive these cases and had detailed me to meet a representative of 
the Papal delegate to settle them. After having worked under those 
instructions for about two weeks, instructions were received to con- 
vene a board with myself as president. 

The Chairman. Those instructions were received when? 

Colonel Hull. In 1905. 

The Chairman. While you were still in Manila? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Where did the board convene? 

Colonel Hull. At Manila, P. I. — Division of the Philippines. 

The Chairman. You considered the claims, did you? 

Colonel Hull. We did. 

The Cpiairman. What are those documents that you have before 
you? 

Colonel Hull. These are the various documents that were pre- 
sented to the board on church claims by the Papal delegate, and also 
the documents referring to the cases which we took from the military 
records and archives, and also papers showing the result of our own 
investigation. , 

The Chairman. Your own independent investigation? 

Colonel PIuLL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Those are the original documents, are they, filed 
in connection with the claims? 

Colonel Hull. These are the original documents which were con- 
sidered by the board. 

The Chairman. They bear your own file numbers, do they? 

Colonel Hull. I see my own mark is on the papers which are in 
front of me. 

The Chairman. You considered those cases individually, did you? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You went over each one, did you? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; took them up one hj one. 

The Chairman. Now proceed in your own way and state the nature 
of those claims, the amount originally asked, what you think of the 
merits of the proposition, etc. Go into the matter as fully as you 
please. 

Colonel Hull. Well, T desire to say, Mr. Chairman, in the first 
place, that if anyone will take up and study any individual case 
here 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, O 

The Chairman. By the way, before you proceed let me get one 
fact clearly before the committee. There are two sorts of claims here, 
are there not, those of the friars and those of the other claimants ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Please explain the difference between the two. 

CLASSES OE CLAIMS. 

Colonel Hull. One class of cases was presented by the Papal dele- 
gate, that consisted of the church proper and also the Jesuit claims. 
The Jesuits put their claims in through Rome, and the other religious 
organizations, the so-called friars as corporations, presented their 
claims through two firms of attornej^s in the city of Manila. They 
were treated differently by the board for reasons which I can explain 
if the published reports are not full enough. 

The Chairman. You have made that distinction clear. Proceed 
now with j^our statement in your own way. 

PROCEDURE OF BOARD. 

Colonel Hull. Anyone who will look at these documents can see 
that the board w^as confronted with a very serious problem. There 
is no one who can study these exhibits from a biased standpoint, 
either from a standpoint of an advocate of the church or as an anti- 
clerical, who can agree with the report of the board in a single case. 
I mean, if you take any individual case and look at it from the 
standpoint of a partisan of one side or the other the report of the 
l>oard will not meet with your approval. We have given almost 
our entire time to this report, as you know, for a long period of time. 
AVe went into each question as thoroughly as the time and circum- 
stances would permit, and we tried to arrive at what we considered 
was a fair compensation and award under all the attending circum- 
stances. In all these cases I have no doubt but that the board might 
have done injustice to either the Government or to the church, but 
so far as I know — and I was there some time after the report was 
made and continued to get information — no specific case of injustice 
has come to the attention of the authorities. I desire to say that 
owing to the work it is very possible that such has been done, but 
it was purely unintentional and arose from the lack of informa- 
tion if such was done. The board used every possible source of in- 
formation. We were personally acquainted with the towns and with 
their importance and with the nature of the church buildings, and 
with the general conditions existing in the individual towns, and 
treated each case as an individual case, not knowing what the sum 
total would run to until it was figured up after the entire report was 
made. The exact figures I do not now remember, not having seen 
these papers for some time, but they are given in one of the schedules 
attached to the report. 

AGGREGATE OF CLAIMS. 

The Chairman. The claims aggregate, approximately, $2,000,000, 
clo they not? 

Colonel Hull. I think it was more than that. My recollection of 
the figures is that it was 4,885,000 pesos, which would be approxi- 
mately two and a half million dollars. 



4 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. A peso being equivalent to 50 cents of our money 
under the law passed by Congress. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was the aggregate of your award approxi- 
mately ? 

Colonel I-IuLL. The award of the original board was $363,030.19. 

The Chairman. The claims were for $2,400,000, approximately, 
and your award was 'about $363,000? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Now, please explain anything you desire as to an 
individual claim, how you took it up, and what you did with it — just 
specify any particular claim. 

CLAIM OF CATHEDRAL OF MANILA. 

Colonel Hull. Well, I can take claim No. 1. That is the claim 
of the Cathedral of Manila. As to that claim — I am speaking from 
memory now — the papers consist of a claim, an affidavit filed by the 
church authorities by, I think, the canon of the cathedral and one of 
the priests in attendance at the cathedral, setting forth damages and 
rentals amounting to 17,818 pesos. On that we have a report of an 
officer, Major Fremont, who in 1902 was designated to investigate 
these cases. In addition to that I was in Manila at the time that this 
cathedral was occupied^ — my office then was in the old throne room 
at the palace, and as a consequence went past the cathedral most 
every day and had personal knowledge of the conditions that then 
existed, which Major Fremont did not have. In addition to that I 
took the sworn testimony of the canon of the cathedral, a gentleman of 
high attainments and character, and went over the ground with him 
personally, talking with him and refreshing my memory with him 
from talk and and personal inspection. We then made the estimate 
which we reported as the finding on that one individual claim. 

The Chairman. What was the nature of the claim, and what were 
the damages? 

Colonel Hull. iVt the time the American troops entered Manila,, 
on August 13, 1898, there were a number of Spanish troops and 
one or two regiments of native Spanish troops that were driven from 
the barracks that they were then occupying, by the American troops, 
who needed shelter. The arrangement by which the Spanish troops 
went into the churches and conventos situated in the city of Manila 
is in obscurity. It was, I think, done by the commanding-general 
of the Spanish forces, and the then archbishop of Manila, with the 
acquiescence of the commanding-general of the Philippines. There 
was a large number of troops there and they had to have shelter, 
and, as I say, the American troops took the barracks.; this left the 
other men without shelter and they proceeded to take the churches 
and conventos. There was a large number of these so-called pris- 
oners of war quartered in the catliedral. They abused it shamefully, 
damaging the woodwork, and the sanitarv condition was such, after 
a few months' occupancy, that when the property was turned back 
to the church it was necessary to turn the hose on it and wash it out 
that way. 

The Chairman. Describe the building. What was the character 
of the buildino:? 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. O 

Colonel Hull. The building is a very large, fine old stone struc- 
ture, with very large dome and high walls, and it had some very fine 
woodwork — such a building as you would expect to find in a cathe- 
dral in the principal city of a Catholic country. A large number 
of the prisoners of war were held there and at the time of the out- 
break, on the 4th of February, as there were a number of native 
troops there, and we were afraid they would join the insurrection and 
add to the trouble, they were kept under very close guard for some 
time, and in that way the damages were increased, because they 
were locked up in there, and in a spirit of wantonness they de- 
stroyed everything that was destructible. 

Mr. Olmsted. Is that the principal church there? 

Colonel Hull. That is the principal church in the island, it is the 
cathedral of Manila. It is on the Plaza. Some of the members 
of this committee I know have seen it — it is on the Plaza and as you 
go into the governor-general's office, it is on the right-hand side of 
the Plaza. That claim which I was discussing — the 17,818 pesos — 
was scaled down to 11,000 pesos. 

The Chairman. That is $5,500. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; exactly $5,825 was the allowance for that. 
It was occupied for seven months and there was an amount of dam- 
age done to the woodwork and the interior of the building. I am 
positive that with that allowance the church would not make money 
in renting its property. 

Mr. Crumpaoker. Do you think that is full compensation for the 
occupation of the building and all the damage to the property during 
the occupancy? 

Colonel Hull. There was a certain amount of wanton damage that 
I think was scaled down; there was some wanton damage that was 
not considered. Is that an answer to your question? 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes. 

Mr. JoNES. Was any of that damage done by American troops ? 

Colonel Hull. In the occupancy itself? 

Mr. Jones. Yes. 

Colonel Hull. No, sir ; that was done by the prisoners of war. 

Mr. Jones. It was done by the Spanish troops who occupied the 
cathedral after the building had been occupied by the American 
troops ? 

Colonel Hull. They were under our control as prisoners of war. 
Our troops never occupied it. 

Mr. Jones. Were they directed by American commanders to take 
possession of this cathedral and occupy it? 

Colonel Hull. As I have said, there was no positive direction, but 
we acquiesced in it and afterwards held them in there by force. They 
were under American guard in that building for a time. 

Mr. Garrett. As I understand, you have allowed what you con- 
sidered to be a reasonable rental, or reasonable payment for actual 
use, and have eliminated all wanton or tort damage ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; in this report we tried to allow for the 
compensation for the rental and for the damages incident to the 
wear and tear of such rental; while in this country rentals always 
include the ordinary wear and tear on the. building, as these claims 
were presented otherwise we considered them otherwise. 



b CATHOLIC CHUBCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

RESPONSIBILITY OF GOVERNMENT. 

Mr. Garkett. You have followed throughout the well-defined rules 
of war that a government will not pay for property wantonly de- 
stroyed. 

Colonel Hull. That is correct. 

Mr. Garrett. And have made the distinction between wanton de- 
struction and use? 

Colonel Hull. Yes. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Let me ask you a question right there. Sup- 
pose the United States Army used this cathedral for a military prison 
and held there in confinement a number of prisoners of war, and 
those prisoners of war while so confined in the cathedral perpetrated 
wanton acts of vandalism and destruction, those wanton acts would 
ordinarily be the incidents of our occupation, and we would be re- 
sponsible for them, would we not? 

Colonel Hull. I think you are correct as to prisoners of war es- 
pecially. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Or if they were occupied as a barracks or oc- 
cupied at all for use in our occupancy, but any damage beyond what 
might reasonably be called the ordinary wear and tear — because 
occupancy was wanton acts of destruction — still our Government 
would be responsible, would it not? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. CRUMPACiiER. Well, I had difficulty in understanding the re- 
sponsibility under the law. 

Colonel Hull. You are asking me that question of course as a 
legal question. My impression is, of course, that the Government 
is not responsible for the torts of its agents. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Where the Government occupies the property 
of a noncombatant for its own use and puts its agents in charge and 
those agents commit damage while in charge under authority of the 
Government, it seems to me that under well-established principles of 
law the Government would be responsible for that damage. The 
Government, of course, is not liable for any injury that results to the 
property of noncombatants as an incident of war. 

Colonel Hull. That was also rejected. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Those claims, from the standpoint of law, would 
probably be rejected, but when you come to the other question, I 
think where a landlord has a tenant, the tenant of a building is re- 
sponsible for the ordinary wear and tear or acts of wantonness and 
destruction that he commits while he is occupying the building. I 
think the Government is responsible for that. 

Colonel Hull. The question has been several times before the Gov- 
ernment and so far as I know they have always followed the rule that 
is laid down in Story on the Constitution, that the Government is not 
responsible for the torts of its agents in all cases. 

Mr. Crumpacker. That rule of course is right as a general proposi- 
tion, but the situation here is peculiar, where the Government puts 
its agents in custody of the property and the custodians, taking ad- 
vantage of their possession or their custody, destroy property. 

Colonel Hull. There is no question but that would raise an equi- 
table claim, but as a legal claim I do not think it raises one. 



CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. / 

Mr. Crumpacker. Of course, if the agent of the Government should 
go out and destroy the property of a noncombatant which the Gov- 
ernment had no responsibility for, you are right, but when the Gov- 
ernment takes possession of a church for its own uses then the Gov- 
ernment is under obligation to take care of that property. In the 
meantime the owner has no control over it, and is naturally unable 
to protect it, because the Government having taken charge of it 
assumes the responsibility of protecting it against wanton destruc- 
tion, particularly of its ow^n agents. 

INSTRUCTIONS TO BOARD. . 

Colonel Hull. The board acted upon that question under the in- 
structions which were considered by the Secretary, and a copy of 
them is attached to the report, in which I find the following : 

Third. Wanton damage by soldiers, tlieft of church property, etc. — 

I read from a letter of the Secretary of War dated September 2, 
1905— 

It is said that a large nnniber of cases with an immense aggregate have been 
filed which fall under this head; that so far as the board has been able to look 
into these cases, it will be impossible to ascertain any facts in relation to this 
class; that the witnesses presented by the church will seldom swear to jnore 
than the goods disappeared while the Americans were in possession ; that such 
a long time has elapsed that the statements will be so vague as to be almost 
impossible to contradict ; that it is a well-known fact that some damage was 
done by American ^troops, but every case that came to the attention of the 
authorities was promptly investigated and the guilty persons punished and 
reparation made whenever it was possible to do so ; that no complaints were 
filed by the churcli^authorities while the events were fresh and evidence obtain- 
able, and it is believed that it is now impracticable to make any investigation ; 
that the improbability of many of the claims is shown by the fact that items 
of silver, etc., are claimed as taken away by the Americans although the prop- 
erty had been abandoned by the church and was in the possession of the insur- 
gents for a long time. 

With respect to this class of claims, all I can say is that the board must 
use its sound discretion. Under the principles of law which are well under- 
stood, the wanton destruction of property by an enlisted man or a number of 
enlisted men, without the authority, either given in advance or conferred 
afterwards by ratification in pais, of the commanding officer, does not make 
the United States responsible ; but there must be in such cases many instances 
of damage or destruction by enlisted men in the course of the occupation of the 
building that were either directly authorized by the commanding officer or were 
of such a character that the commanding officer must in the occupation of the 
building have anticipated that such damage would take place, and so in effect 
authorize it. 

Now, there is a class of damages, usually incident to occupation by soldiers, 
with respect to which the Government might always be made liable. The seiz- 
ure, however, of sacred vessels, of sacred vestments, presumed only by their 
absence at the end of the occupation by the soldiers, I should regard as of 
very doubtful validity — unless the evidence were direct tending to show that 
this course was taken by the soldiers and authorized by the officers; and, 
especially, are presumptions of this character not to be indulged in where there 
was previous occupation by the insurgents, and where the evidence is not 
distinct of what the condition of the buildings was when entered and the 
presence of particular property when the United States entered into occupa- 
tion. I do not intend to advise the board to be technical or to be illiberal in 
estimating damage to property ordinarily incident to occupation by troops who 
are not particularly careful of the property in which they live; but I do wish 
to advise against the allowance of large damages for the disappearance of 
particularly valuable vessels or vestments which were probably stolen long 
before the troops entered into occupation, and with respect to which it is to 



8 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

be supposed the church authorities would exercise the utmost care in their 
preservation before the occupation of the property by the troops. I can not 
give more direct instructions on this point and must trust to the careful exam- 
ination of the board in not making unreasonable and excessive recommenda- 
tions, but in allowing everything in the way of damages which might reasonably 
have been anticipated by those familiar with the methods pursued by soldiers 
in an enemy's country in the occupation of buildings with the relaxation of dis- 
cipline that follows such unusual circumstances. 

Mr, Crumpacker. Who issued that order? 

Colonel Hull. Hon. William Taft, in reply to a letter drafted by 
me. 

Mr. Jones. I want to ask you a little more definitely about the 
facts; I do not care so much about the law, but want to get at the 
facts. This cathedral was first occupied by the Spanish soldiery 
without any direction 'on the part of the American commander, was 
it not? 

Colonel Hull. There was no direction on the part of the com- 
manding general so far as I could find. 

Mr. Jones. How long was the cathedral so occupied before it was 
turned into a prison, so to speak? 

Colonel Hull. I should say not over a day or so. 

Mr. Jones. Not over a day or so? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. This especially in view of the fact that 
the cathedral and the commanding general's office adjoin, and looking 
out of his windows he would have to see the condition that existed. 
They were prisoners of war. ^¥hen I got there they were under 
guard. 

Mr. Madison. Then the principal amount of damages is attribu- 
table to the acts of the prisoners of war, who were in fact prisoners 
of war at the time the damage occurred? 

Colonel Hull. I think so, and that was the reason that most of it 
was allowed. 

Mr. Madison. Now as I understand, Mr. Crumpacker, your posi- 
tion is that the relatidhship between the Government and the church 
was in fact the same as that of landlord and tenant? 

Mr. Crumpacker. I think most certainly that the Government 
would be bound to see that its agents or officers did not perpetrate 
wanton acts of damage. It is like a man who has a big family in an 
apartment building and his children write on the decorations on the 
wall. I think he is responsible just the same. Now what I would 
like to know is this: It Avould be doubtless impossible for us to go 
through these several claims in detail — — - 

Colonel Hull. It would take you about as long to do it now as it 
took us to do it, and that was at least six months. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I want to know whether this investigation and 
your report were based upon principles of law and equity, and if 
your endeavor was to do justice to the claimants and to protect the 
Government at the same time? 

Colonel Hull. I can assure you that that was our leading object. 

WANTON ACTS OF INJURY. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Now, in these several investigations where there 
was evidence satisfying your mind that our troops or prisoners of war 
committed wanton acts of injury to property, either to furniture or 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. V 

decorations or anything else, while they were in custody, was it your 
policy to generally disallow those items? 

Mr. Madison, As I understand, Mr. Crumpacker asks you whether 
or not you followed the same rule in all cases as you did in the case 
of the cathedral at Manila? 

Mr. Crumpacker. I ask it as a general proposition. 

Colonel Hull. Please read the question. 

(The reporter read the question.) 

Colonel Hull. I had the question repeated in order to properly 
understand it. There was a distinction made by us between the 
prisoners of war and our occupancy. Where we were satisfied that 
actual, wanton damage had taken place the board as a rule rejected 
the claim in the latter class of cases, but were a little more liberal in 
their estimation of the rental. 

AMOUNT OF DAMAGE BY WANTON ACTS. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Colonel Hull, have you any idea of the amount 
of damages that were committed by our troops, or prisoners held by 
us, wantonly and that were disallowed — have you any idea of about 
the amount of damages of that character that were proven ? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir; I could, by going over the papers, give 
you approximately the amount of damages claimed which would 
come under the head of wanton, but the number that were clearlj'- 
substantiated is small. That is covered I think in one of the supple- 
mental reports. There are two reports, as you know, and the amount 
of damages was estimated. The report, however, was as to the 
amount of such damages claimed by the church, as it was almost 
impossible to arrive at a definite conclusion in each case where it 
was presented. In a few cases the evidence was conchided, but in 
most of the cases the evidence was highly unconclusive and we did 
not pursue the investigation because we would never have completed 
the work if we had gone into each case of wanton damage. Does 
that answer your question? 

EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes. You I assume examined all of the avail- 
able witnesses and seciired all the information that was possible in 
your investigation as to each of these several claims ? 

Colonel Hull. We did; yes, sir. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The witnesses testified under oath, I suppose? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; they did. 

Mr. Crumpacker. And you examined people who lived in the 
vicinity and knew personally about the matter and officers who occu- 
pied the premises and knew something of the character and extent of 
the occupancy? 

Colonel Hull. We did, wherever we could. We searched the 
records of the Adjutant-General's office constantly to learn the names 
of the officers who had been in that vicinity, and had talks with them 
and took their testimony and got their statements. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Then I presume you acquainted yourselves with 
the condition of the property before its occupancy by the United 
States ? 



10 CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. We did as far as possible, but in very many cases 
that was very hard to determine. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I assume that it was. Now, in all cases, I under- 
stand, where there was destruction of property — not on account of 
Federal occupation, but as an incident of war, damages by besieging 
communities, cities, or something like that — no allowance was made. 

Colonel Hull. No allowance was made in such cases; that was re- 
jected as an incident of war. The amount of those claims is quite 
large. A number of church properties were burned and destroyed by 
fire. 

Mr. Crumpacker. A good deal of that was done by the insurgents, 
was it not? 

DESTRUCTION BY FIRE. 

Colonel Hull. A great deal of that was done by the insurgents. 
Several of the insurgent generals made it a practice to burn those 
buildings because they thought we would have no place to shelter our 
troops. 

The Chairman. Right there, I remember your itemized report in 
which you set forth each claim by number and somewhat in detail. 
Toward the conclusion of that report you go on to say that where 
there was a destruction by fire it must have been as an act of war by 
the insurgents or by our troops, or else a wanton destruction by some- 
body, or an accident. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. • 

The Chairman. And in none of those cases did you award any 
damages ? 

DESTRUCTION BY GENERAL LUNA. 

Colonel Hull. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Now, then, it is a matter of history that Luna, 
when he tried to escape from Lawton, blew up a lot of conventos, did 
he not, and destroyed a great deal of other property ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And you allowed nothing for that? 

Colonel Hull. We allowed nothing for that. As you go up the 
railroad, for instance, north of Manila you will find that everj^ church 
up there has been destroyed. General Edwards can probably remem- 
ber of going into town after town at the time the conventos were 
being burned when our troops entered. The church at Malolos was 
destroyed by that means just before our troops entered; the church 
was set on fire. 

DESTRUCTION OF GUADALUPE CHURCH, 

The Chairman. Do you know of any case of the destruction of 
church property in the Philippine Islands by fire where such destruc- 
tion was commanded by our officers? 

Colonel Hull. There were several. To take one specific case, the 
evidence would tend to show that the Guadalupe church, a verj'^ fine 
structure about 5 miles from the city of Manila, was destroyed by a 
company of the First California Volunteers acting under the instruc- 
tion of Brig. Gen. Charles King. That was destroyed apparently 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 11 

because he was drawing our lines back and that would have left an 
opening just in advance of his line that could be made use of as a 
military base. 

The Chairman. Was compensation claimed for that? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What was done with that claim? 

Colonel Hull. It is covered in a full report. All the evidence is 
set forth in the claim of the friars of the Augustine Order. 

The Chairman. It was not allowed, was it? 

Colonel Hull. It was not allowed, but we made a finding of fact 
as far as we could. 

The Chairman. It is not included in this 

Colonel Hull. It is not included in this $363,000 ; no, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. Does it fall under the head of that Catholic Church 
claim ? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Crujmpackek. Do you know the finding with relation to the 
value of that property? 

Colonel Hull. It is claim ]^o. 3 of the friar claims, on page 5 of the 
report of the board — 

Destruction of churcli and convento at Guadalupe, amounting to $238,000. 
The Augustine fathers had as a rest house on the banks of the Pasig River, a 
short distance from Manila, a large magnificent convent of solid masonry con- 
struction. This building was started in the early part of the seventeenth cen- 
tury — 

I think it was in 1607 that that building was started — 

and was joined by a medium-sized modern church. The convent was also in 
possession of a fine library. The log book of the Lagima cle Bay under date of 
Friday, February 17, 1899, 8.20 p. m., states — 

We looked up the old log book of that gunboat — 

" It was ordered by General King (Brig. Gen. Charles King, U. S. Volun- 
teers, brigade commander at San Pedro Macati), in case the force investing 
Gaudalupe was strongly attacked to fall back to San Pedro and blow up the 
building." 

These orders were issued shortly after tl^e insurrection had broken out, and at 
a time that preparations were being made to resist the burning of Manila, which 
attempt was made February 22. The log book further shows that under date 
of February 19, 1899, " It was deemed best to withdraw our troops from Guada- 
lupe, although no strong force of insurgents had advanced, and the troops aban- 
doned and fired the convent 5.30 a. m. A continual fire from insurgent sharp 
shooters, their fire was returned by occasional fire from the rifles, gatlings, and 
3-inch guns. Shells were thrown into the convent to explode the nitroglycerin 
unsuccessfully." These orders were doubtless issued by General King and were 
carried out by a company of California volunteers. They were evidently issued 
as a military necessity, and there is no evidence of bad faith on the part of the 
military commander. It is impracticable for this or any other board, at this 
late date, in such a proceeding as this, to go into the question as to whether the 
action of the oflQcer was proper or not. We do not know on what information he 
acted, nor what trouble he was anticipating. In the light of subsequent events, 
it is easy to say that the destruction of the buildings and contents was a thing 
to be regretted, but even this does not create a liability on the part of the 
United States. 

If anything should be paid for this destruction, we would recommend that the 
sum of $220,000 be appropriated, but as the damage was caused as an incident 
of warfare, we recommend that the same precedents and reasons that hereto- 
fore have caused the denial of such claims be followed. 

The Chairman. How many prisoners at a time were confined in 
that cathedral at Manila? 



12 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. The exact figures are in the papers. At one time I 
should say there were over 3,000. 

The Chairman. You say in this report almost 4,000 ? 
Colonel Hull. Of course, I am speaking from memory. 
The Chairman. At one time almost 4,000 men? 
Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Garrett. That is the cathedral at Manila? 

PROPERTY DESTROYED BY ORDER OF UNITED STATES ARMY 

OFFICERS. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Before we leave that matter, other church prop- 
erty was destroyed by order of the American military officers, was 
it not? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, yes, sir; there are a few around over the island 
that were destroyed on the abandonment of the place, or something 
of that nature. 

Mr. Crumpacker. And you have those segregated or separated. 
Are they mentioned in your report in the valuation of that prop- 
erty — is that determined? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Crumpacker. So that we can find those occasions and those 
incidents in your reports? 

Colonel Hull. My impression is that you can in the supplemental 
report. 

Mr. Crumpacker. What you regarded as the fair value of the 
property ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir — Excuse me; I am wrong. Those items 
were not segregated in our supplemental report; only the total value 
is there set forth and the individual towns were not set forth. I do 
not remember whether I have my old notes on which those figures 
are based or not. • 

HOSTILITY OF INSURGENTS TO PRIESTHOOD. 

Mr. Crumpacker. There is another matter. I understand that the 
insurgents in the islands of the archipelago were hostile to the priest- 
hood largely; they blamed the priesthood largely for the civil and 
political oppression that they conceived they were laboring under. 
Did that result in the malicious destruction of any church property? 

Colonel Hull. It resulted in the malicious destruction of church 
property in the years 1896 and 1897, during the time of the insurrec- 
tion against Spain. It also doubtless resulted in some destruction of 
church property during the insurrection against our authority, but 
I should say that it was not universal — you would find a case of it 
here and there. There was no general policy, although there was the 
general policy of seizing church property for insurgent funds, wher- 
ever they could get any property of the church that they could turn 
into the insurgent treasury. 

Mr. Crumpacker. In many cases it was property seized by the 
community in some way, was it not? 

Colonel Hull. They afterwards did that; yes, sir. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 13 

MANNER OF PAYMENT OF CLAIMS, IF ALLOWED. 

Mr. Garrett. As I remember, in the incidental discussion of this 
matter in the last Congress, the question was submitted to Secretary 
Taft about the payment of these claims — in the event they were 
paid — as to whether they were to be paid to the church in a lump 
sum or whether the individual cases ought to be picked out and cases 
made. Is that a matter that you would like to discuss now ? 

Colonel Hull. I am perfectly willing to answer you. I should say 
emphatically as the cases were presented and gone over by the repre- 
sentative authority of the Catholic Church, that we should make pay- 
ment to him of a lump sum and let them have the trouble of making 
the necessary divisions. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Where cases were presented by attorneys you 
would jDay the attorneys representing the clients, would you not? 

Colonel Hull. We would pay to the attorneys. I have not dis- 
cussed that except that a question led me into it. 

Mr. Garrett. No attorney is interested in the Catholic Church 
claims, strictly speaking, is there? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir; no attorney is represented in this $363,000 
claim. 

Mr. Garrett. Was your board convened under a special act or 
under the general laws? 

Colonel Hull. Just under the general authority of the War De- 
partment to convene boards for any purpose to investigate any ques- 
tion, and under an act of Congress, as it was a claim against the 
United States, the president of the board has authority to administer 
an oath which is binding on the witness. 

Mr. Garrett. Are the reports unanimous throughout on these mat- 
ters or is there a minority report? 

Colonel Hull. There is no minority report. There are differences 
of individual opinions among the members of the board, but the re- 
port is as nearly unanimous as you could possibly get three men to be. 

The Chairman. Your differences of opinion as to claims that you 
have allowed were principally concerning the amount you should 
allow, were they not ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; almost invariably after we got through 
with the evidence the three men would have divergent opinions. We 
would discuss it and adopt a sum in which all would acquiesce. 

Mr. Jones. What is the aggregate of the findings in the friars 
claims? 

Colonel Hull. I will have to refer to this report. 

Mr. Jones. If you intend to take that matter up presently, we 
will let the question rest for the present. 

The Chairman. Now take up the matter of the friars claims. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Chairman; is it the purpose of this committee 
to just inquire as to this one particular claim and not go through 
all of the claims? 

The Chairman. Oh, no. 

Mr. Jones. What will be the course of the committee? 

The Chairman. I should say that it would take too long to go 
through the individual claims. Some of them are only for $60 or 
$80, or some other very small amount. 



14 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. I will state to the committee that after the formal 
hearing I Avill be perfectly willing to stay here as long as any member 
of the committee desires to investigate any individual claim and go 
over it with him, and to show how we worked. There are a good 
many of the documents in Spanish which I can translate. 

Mr. Garrett. I want to ask this question : Is there any demand on 
the part of the individual churches or cathedrals for specific pay- 
ments to be made to them? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir ; there is a specific demand from each church, 
but it is made by their representative head, the bishop of the church, 
and he has turned the papers over to the Papal delegate. 

Mr. Garrett. But there is really no difference of opinion as to how 
the payment of the Catholic claims shall be made — if they are made 
at all that they ought to be made direct to the head. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

General Edwards. I think I can answer your question. 

The Chairman. The committee would like to hear from you. 
General Edwards. 

General Edwards. When I Avas in the Philippines the last time 
with the Secretary I found that the archbishop was not any too anx- 
ious to assume this responsibility, but it should be borne in mind 
that there is an American archbishop with four bishoprics under 
him. They are harmonious in any decision they might make, or if 
the money be turned over to the archbishop, and he is not at all keen 
to have this done; in other words, just as Colonel Hull has said, he 
does not care about adjudicating these matters with the different 
churches, although it strikes me that that is the most practicable 
way. Any lump award would be made to the archbishop and he 
would reconcile the various amounts according to the dioceses under 
him, the four dioceses presided over by the bishops, and therefore if 
they are willing to turn over the lump sum they will have to be will- 
ing to adjudicate those various claims. So there is no contention 
among the various churches; they are perfectly harmonious, under 
the church control over them, as to the acceptance of this money. 

Colonel Hull. To make it a little clearer, so that there will be no 
question about it, it is not the archbishop of Manila that has jurisdic- 
tion of the financial affairs of the other dioceses. He is responsible 
only for the diocese of Manila, but the Papal delegate has charge of 
all of them. It is a question of canonical law. 

Mr. Jones. That means, does it not, that it does not follow that 
this money will be used in the various parts of the island at all, but 
that it will be under the control of Rome ? 

Colonel Hull. I can answer that question, I think, very fully. I 
have talked with, I think, almost every priest in the island and with 
every bishop and I know the purpose and intention of the Papal dele- 
gate in case of payment. Any amount of money that is paid there 
will be spent in the individual localities in the reconstruction of 
church property. 

General Edwards. There is no doubt about that. 

Mr, McKiNLAT. Of course the main thing is that if this money is 
paid in a lump sum to the Papal delegate there will be no liability on 
the part of the United States. 

Colonel Hull. None whatever. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 15 

Mr. Jones. I do not know what the intention of the archbishop may 
be, but I do know that when this matter was discussed before there 
was a question as to whether it would be expended there or expended 
anywhere that the Church of Rome desired to expend it. 

Colonel Hull. I have no hesitancy in answering that question 
emphatically. I have no doubt but that any amount of money that 
may be received will be spent in the reconstruction of church property 
in the individual towns. For instance, in the town of Lobo, where if 
$10,000 worth of damage was done, they may not spend $10,000 there; 
they may spend $5,000 there and $5,000 in an adjoining town, but the 
funds will be devoted to rebuilding. 

Mr. Davis. As I understand it, the lump sum that may be paid 
will be paid to the Catholic Church and the friars separately, and 
would not in any manner indicate how much was awarded by the 
General Government for any individual claim. 

Colonel Hull. I do not think so. 

Mr. Davis. It would perhaps help out the archbishop there if he 
knew what the committee of Congress had done Avith regard to segre- 
gating any of these claims. 

Colonel Hull. That question was gone into thoroughly between the 
Papal delegate and the bishops and the board, and our report is in 
the nature of a lump sum. 

Mr. Davis. It would be immaterial to them then how we arrived 
at this total? 

Colonel Hull. To a- certain extent. I desire to volunteer one piece 
of information which I think is no more than fair to the church, and 
that is this : That in case any pajaiient is to be made for these claims 
by all means do it at the earliest practicable dat^. They have already 
suffered a great deal of damage in almost all these cases, since this 
report was made over a year ago, and that is continuing and growing 
from day to day. Prompt paj^ment now is worth more than increased 
payment at a later date. 

Mr. Crumpacker. In relation to the payee, I have the impression 
that the diocese was the ecclesiastical entity and that the bishop of the 
diocese was the business as well as the religious head of the property, 
and all the property. 

Colonel Hull. You are right. It is in the bishop. 

Mr. Crumpacker. And all suits brought concerning that property 
should be brought in the name of the bishop ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

THE FOUR DIOCESES. 

Mr. Crumpacker. There are four dioceses, as I understand, in the 
archipelago. 

Colonel Hull. Five, sir; Vigan, Manila, Iloilo, Cebu, and Nueva 
Caceres. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I suppose we would get acquittance likewise 
from each bishop? 

Colonel Hull. That would be very easy, but in these damages each 
bishop has separately appointed the Papal delegate as his representa- 
tive; he is their common head. 

25765—08 2 



16 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

OWNERSHIP AND TITLE OF CHURCHES. 

Mr. Jones. Now when this investigation was carried — or when it 
was begun, I will say — in whose possession were these various 
churches ? 

Colonel Hull. Do you mean the actual manual possession ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes; in the Roman Catholic Church or in the inde- 
pendent Catholic churches? 

Colonel Hull. In most cases it was in the Roman Catholic Church. 
In some cases it was in the hands of communities, and in some cases 
in the* hands of the independent churches. 

Mr. Jones. At that time the litigation that had been instituted had 
not been decided? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Jones. I mean the case had not been decided ? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir ; the board did not go into the details of the 
property as we anticipated the result which has taken place. All 
these properties have been taken into the custody of the church. 

Mr. Jones. You say the board did anticipate it? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jones. Why, because of the religious complexion of the court 
that was to pass upon the case? 

Colonel Hull. The religious complexion of the board 

Mr. Jones. No ; of the court, I say. 

Colonel Hull. No, sir; but as a laAvyer it was my judgment that 
the ultimate outcome of the case would be that way; it seemed to 
me that the title was in the church. 

Mr. Jones. It is a matter of fact that many of those churches 
had been built by the labor and the contribution of the individual 
members of the church entirely, and that the Catholic Church as a 
whole did not contribute a dollar toward the construction of those 
churches, is it not? 

Colonel Hull. Yoe, sir; the same as the construction of church 
properties in this country. 

■ Mr. Jones. And it is a fact that in many cases every single member 
of the church was present who had been in any way instrumental in 
building the church there. 

Colonel Hull. I think so. 

Mr. McKiNLEY. Has that not already been passed upon by the 
supreme court of the islands? 

Colonel Hull. I think so. 

Mr. Jones. And yet you say the board anticipated that even in this 
case it would be held that the Roman Catholic Church owned the 
property, when these people had built it by their own contributions? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It has been so held. The supreme court of the 
islands in a case that was brought before it rendered an opinion that 
it was owned by the Catholic Church. 

PERSONNEL AND OPINION OF PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT. 

The Chairman. Of how many judges does that court consist, 
seven ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; seven. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 17 

The Chairman. Three of whom, including the chief justice, are 
Filipinos? 

Colonel Hull. Four of whom now — three at that time — including 
the chief justice, are Filipinos. 

General Edwards. No; the nomination of Mr. Araneta went over. 
Judge Tracy declined appointment to the Philippine Commission, so 
both appointments failed. 

Mr. Garrett. At the time of this opinion there were three ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; four Americans. 

Mr. Jones. And the majority of the court were Roman Catholics, 
were they ? 

Colonel Hull. I think there is only one American judge who is a 
Catholic, but I am not sure. 

Mr. Madison. Was the opinion of the court unanimous ? 

Colonel Hull. I do not recall; I think there was one dissenting 
opinion. 

The Chairman. We have the opinion. As I understand it there 
was one who did not agree in the reasoning of the majority opinion 
although he did in the conclusion. It is my understanding that the 
court was unanimous as to the title being in the Catholic Church. 

Colonel Hull. Owing to my traveling so much on military busi- 
ness I have not been able to keep up with the decisions of the supreme 
court of the Philippine Islands. 

Mr. Crumpacker. We ought to have that opinion printed in the 
record. 

Mr. Garrett. Mr. Secretar}^ Taft referred to that opinion. 

The Chairman. I desire to ssij for the benefit of the gentlemen 
who were not members of this committee during the last Congress 
that we had this subject before us at the short session ending last 
March. The documents which are now before Colonel Hull had in- 
advertently been returned to the Philippine Islands, and we could 
not get them here before the session ended. We also wanted to, get 
the opinions of the supreme court of the islands, which have just been 
mentioned. They did not arrive, my recollection is, until a week or 
two before adjournment, so that there was no opportunity for the 
committee really to consider this subject. As I have said, it is my 
understanding that while one of the justices does not agree with the 
reasoning of the majority opinion, he does nevertheless concur in the 
conclusion. 

CLAIM OF CIVIL AUTHORITIES. 

Colonel Hull. Mr. Jones, I tKink you will find that in the claim of 
Nueva Caceres, the original papers submitted to the board show how 
the civil authorities, the church authorities, and the military authori- 
ties regarded the church properties which had partly been built 
out of Government funds. That question arose in case No. 1, and 
also in the case of Iloilo, Vigan, and Neuva Caceres. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Did the civil authorities put in a claim ? 

Colonel Hull. The local authorities put in a claim that when the 
military authorities should leave the archbishop's palace it should 
be turned over to the local government instead of the church author- 



18 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

ities. The question was very carefully considered by Governor Taft 
and the full papers are bsfore you. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Is that the only case in which the civil authori- 
ties made claim ? 

Colonel Hull. It is the only one that I have knowledge where the 
local or provincial authorities made claim. This is slightly different, 
too, from the other church properties. This building was built by 
contributions of one-third from the contribution of the faithful, one- 
third from the " fondos locales," and one-third from the general 
treasury. 

Mr. Garrett. What is fondos locales? 

Colonel Hull. Under the Spanish regime it was the local funds 
kept in the central treasury. 

DATE OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Is it not a fact that some of those buildings were 
constructed a couple of hundred years ago? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; the Augustine convent in Manila was con- 
structed in 1607. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. So that the present population had nothing to do 
with it and contributed nothing to it? 

Colonel Hull. Certainly not. Most of the churches are quite old. 

Mr. Garrett. Those churches are constructed mostly of stone, are 
they not? 

Colonel Hull. Yes. sir; one of the peculiar features of the situa- 
tion is that some of the largest churches are in the smallest toAvns. 
Take the town of Oton, it is a town of no importance and the church 
there is large enough for a city of 200,000 inhabitants. 

CHURCHES CONSTRUCTED BY WHOM? 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Scf that none of the present population could claim 
that his personal contribution had helped to construct the building. 

Colonel Hull. In some cases there is some shifting and changing 
of conditions. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. That would be very rare would it not? 

Colonel Hull. I would not like to speak offhand as to that, but I 
should say it would be the exception and not the rule. 

Tthe Chairman. You have just said that in some cases conditions 
were changing and shifting, etc. Would not this fact afford an argu- 
ment for the turning of this money over in a lump sum to be dis- 
posed of by the church according to present conditions and needs. 

Colonel Hull. I think it would be more beneficial to the Govern- 
ment if the money was put into the places where it would do the most 
good rather than in a place where the case arose. 

Mr. Madison. These people are all members of the E-oman Catholic 
Church and obey its ecclesiastical law and in no case would rebel 
against it, and as far as ecclesiastical matters are concerned it is in 
all respects under the government of the church and the recognized 
ecclesiastical authority of the bishops and archbishops. 

Colonel Hull. You mean the ones we are dealing with here? 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 19 

INDEPENDENT PHILIPPINE CATHOLIC CHURCH. 

Mr, Madison. Yes, sir; all these. Is there an independent church 
there ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes, there is an independent church. 

Mr, Madison. I just asked for information. I am a new man 
here. 

Colonel Hull. I think I know what you want to ascertain. There 
are no claims presented here by the independent clergy or church. 
All of these claims are presented by the Catholic Church proper and 
a payment to the head would bind all their subordinates, because 
they are all acting in harmony. Is that the information you desired ? 

Mr, Madison. Yes, sir, 

Mr. Jones. That is an independent church in the Philippine 
Islands, an independent Catholic church, and there has been a con- 
troversy between the independent church headed by Archbishop 
Aglipay and the Roman Catholic Church as to the ownership of all 
this property. 

Colonel Hull. Not all of it, just part of it. 

Mr. Jones. Part of this property, most of it? 

Colonel Hull. No ; I should say the minority portion of the 
churches. , 

Mr. Jones. I suppose it was a larger part than that. What you 
mean to say in reply to this question is that the independent church 
has not put in any claim for damages ; that it is the Church of Rome 
that has put in a claim for damages to this property, but there has 
been a question between the two wings of the church as to the owner- 
ship of the property. 

Mr. Madison. But that has been concluded now, as I understand 
it, by the civil court, and the question of the title to that property 
has been decided in favor of that organization to which you have 
made these awards? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. » 

Mr. Helm. Maybe you have stated it, but I did not catch it, and I 
Avould like to ask now in whom is the title to the property vested? 

TITLE TO CHURCH PROPERTY. 

Colonel Hull. In the bishop of the dioceses. 

Mr. Helm. He is the title holder of all the property, is he ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hull. All the church property 

Mr, Davis, The independent churches and others. Is it now so 
decided ? 

Colonel Hull. There are some shacks of independent churches that 
he does not claim title to. 

Mr. Davis. Well, all that was contained in this award included 
those independent churches as well as the regular Roman Catholic 
Church, but it is now decided by the supreme court that all of it be- 
longs to the Roman Catholic Church proper. 

Mr. Crumpacker. All the property that was formerly vested in the 
bishop in trust for the Roman Catholic Church, I understand, was; 
subsequently the independent church claimed that it should have a 
portion of that property. 



20 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Crumpacker. And the court held that that property, having 
been originally in the archbishop in trust for the church, that the 
seism in the church did not transfer the title, but that it remained 
where it was originally, and the independents had no part of it. Of 
course any church property that they might acquire and construct 
on their own account belongs to them. They are Catholics likewise, 
are they not ? 

ATTITUDE OF INDEPENDENT CHURCH. 

Mr. Davis. Have you any opinion tending to show whether or not 
the independents are satisfied with the decision ? 

Colonel Hull. We paid absolutely no attention to the independent 
class of churches at all. 

Mr. Davis. I thought it might involve the Government of the 
United States. 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. As to this division, did that occur before the insur- 
rection — before we had any interest — or has it occurred since ? 

Colonel Hull. It has all occurred since the origin of these claims. 

Mr. Garrett. You say it has occurred since the origin of these 
claims ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. Let me ask you this, if you do not mind stating, is 
there any idea, and if so, have you anything to base it on, that these 
claims constitute any part for the motive for that? 

Colonel Hull. I should say none whatsoever. Of course that is 
a personal opinion. The seism started after Agiipay surrendered 
after the breakdown of the insurrection. These claims arose during 
the insurrection; the seism was started after the insurrection had 
been quelled. 

Mr. Garrett. Aftew? the breaking out ? 

Colonel JHuLii. After the insurrection. I will state for the infor- 
mation of the committee that Agiipay was at one time administrator 
of the church property at Vigan. He had trouble with the church 
authorities, was unfrocked, and became an insurgent leader in the 
northern province. He committed a number of atrocities and was 
one of the last men to surrender. 

The Chairman. When did he first claim to be an archbishop ? 

Colonel Hull. Some little time after he came back, after he had 
surrendered, and after the breaking down of the insurrection; the 
actual time I do not now recall. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Long after the claim now pending originated. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir — not long after, but afterwards. 

NUMBER OF INDIVIDUAL CLAIMS. 

Mr. Jones. I do not understand that that question is involved at 
all in this inquiry. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether 
this is to conclude the hearing on these claims. I realize that it 
would take a great deal of time to go through all of them and I do 
not suppose the committee is going to undertake that, but for one I 
would like to have some information as to the larger claims and my 
reason for that is, I will state very frankly to the chairman and to 
the committee, that we were engaged some years ago, as you know, 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 21 

in investigating the friar lands, and Congress appropriated— or,, 
rather, Congress provided for the payment of those lands. For one, 
I am absolutely convinced that we paid two or three times as much 
for them as they were worth, and I do not want to be a party myself 
to paying — if we are going to pay at all for these claims — more thaw 
the committee thinks after thorough investigation is due the church. 
Much of this land that we bought from the friars — probably some- 
thing like $25 an acre — it turns out now that at least half of it is not 
as valuable as the public land out there, and we have not been able to 
dispose of them at all at anything like what the government paid 
for them — I mean what the Philippine government paid for them — 
and I do not care to see that repeated. 

Mr. Garrett. Have you a statement as to how many of the indi- 
vidual claims there are? 

Colonel Hull. There are 466 individual claims. 

The Chairman. I desire to inform the committee that at the last 
session of Congress there was printed another pamphlet, copies of 
which ought to be before them this morning. I am surprised that 
they are not. It is called the " Proceedings of the Board on Chiirch 
Claims," the board of Avhich Colonel Hull was president. 

Mr. Washburn. We have all got it. 

The Chairman. That is not the one to which I refer. On the 
second page there begins an itemized statement showing each claim 
by number, the amount originally asked for, the character of the 
claim, and the amount of the award. For instance here is one that 
cuts a claim down from three thousand two hundred and odd dollars 
to $900. 

Colonel Hull. I can take the exhibits and show as a rule the size 
of the building and the character of its construction. 

The Chairman. I think that it would be well for each member of 
the committee to have a copy of this document. It was printed dur- 
ing the last session. I will order a reprint. It contains the itemized 
report of the board, and if the members of the committee will study 
it they will see that some of the claims are comparatively small and 
the awards insignificant in amount. There is one award for $12.-50, 
We do not want to go through all of them, but the important claims 
can be taken up. 

Mr. Jones. I think that is a good suggestion. I think each mem- 
ber should be furnished Avith a copy of that report and have Colonel 
Hull, if he will be- kind enough, to come before us at another date 
when we could ask him some questions with regard to the larger 
claims. 

The Chairman. I had the report printed at the last session for 
that purpose, but we were never able to consider it because of the 
absence of the original testimony and documents now before us. 

Mr. Davis. The report gives the items. 

CATHEDRAL OF MANILA. 

The Chairman. Yes. Gentlemen, let me read to you one of the 
items. Here is one on page 2, concerning the cathedral of Manila, 
the damages done and the character of the claim, and the award : 

No. 1, cathedral of Manila. Amount claimed, ?=17,818.42. 
The present cathedral was built between the years 1870 and 1879, upon plans 
approved by the minister of colonies at Madrid, and from fnnds contributed 



22 CATHOLIC CHUBCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

one-tljird by the fuitlitul, one-third Ijy the general island treasury, and one- 
third from the local funds. 

The board is informed by the church authorities that the title to the land on 
which this building is located is in the church. The bureau of archives reports 
that the antiquity of the archbishopric of Manila, which was founded in 1580, 
makes it impossible to determine the actual ownership of this land. This is 
one of the numerous buildings in the islands, known as buildings of the state. 

The question as to the title has never been decided, although it was consid- 
ered by Governor Taft, in 1903, in relation to the archbishop's palace at Nueva 
Caceres, in which case he held that it would not be advisable to come to a 
definite conclusion administratively, but would refer the question to the courts. 
As the only possible claimants can be the United States and the Catholic Church, 
no suit has been instituted, and the clergy is now in peaceful possession of the 
property. 

The cathedral was occupied immediately after the capitulation of the city of 
Manila as barracks for prisoners of war, both Spanish and native, Spanish "and 
native troops being placed therein. It is impossible to learn whether this was 
done by an agreement between the Spanish general and the archbishop, but 
there can be no question that it was sanctioned by the United States military 
authorities, as after the outbreak of hostilities, on the 4th of February, guards 
were placed over the native prisoners of war so that they could not escape and 
join the insurgents. 

The building received the hardest possible kind of treatment, due probably 
to the large number of prisoners using it, sometimes aggregating almost 4,000 
men. 

In view of the fact that the question has been considered by Colonel Crowder, 
General Otis, General Davis, and the present Seci-etary of War, we expressed no 
opinion as to the title, but recommend that rental at the rate of ?1,500 per 
month for seven months, amounting to 1^10,500, and damages to woodwork, etc.. 
Fl,150. total 1P=11,650, be paid. 

(Exhibits 1-8.) 

No. 2, Ateneo of Manila, belonging to the Society of Jesus. Claim for rental 
and damages, f*=7,500. 

This building was occupied by a large number of oflicers and enlisted men of 
the Spanish prisoners of war for a period of seven months. We recommend 
payment of rental at ?=900 per month for seven months, ?=6,300. No damages. 

(Exhibits 9-12.) 

No. 3, Order of Mission of the Jesuits of Santa Ana, Rizal. Claim for rental 
and damages, ^500. 

This building was oceupied by the Washington Volunteers for a short time, 
and it is recommended that payment of rental amounting to ?=400 be made. No 
damages. 

(Exhibit 13.) 

Mr. Davis. I would like to ask Colonel Hull if lie can give the com- 
mittee any further information in detail as to either one of these 
cases. 

Colonel Hull. I can give you the full details. 

Mr. Davis. You have the documents before you, have you ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; and I have personal mental pictures of the 
buildings and the condition that existed there. 

ATENEO OF MANILA. 

The Chairman. Take No. 2 and give the facts as to it. 

Colonel Hull, That is a very large boys' school; it is right north 
of the archbishop's house and virtually adjoining it. They have a 
large basement and the upstairs they use for schoolrooms, and part of 
it is a museum of the city of Manila. It is a large, handsome, well- 
constructed building. The main portion used there downstairs, the 
basement, where they had cots underneath the wings, covers an im- 
mense territory, virtually a block. The upstairs portion was used for 
officers, for the noncommissioned officers. The woodwork was changed 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IIST PHILIPPHsTE ISLANDS. 23 

and the school desks were piled up and thrown in a heap so they could 
get the people into the building. 

The Chairman. Get the soldiers in, you mean? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; the Spanish prisoners of war. That school 
had to be discontinued, or mainly discontinued, and the Jesuits asked 
General Hughes, the provost-marshal, to remove the prisoners so they 
could start to school again, and he turned it over as soon as possible, 
so that the cause of education could go on. I have been in the build- 
ing repeatedly, and I know I have examined almost every room. 

The Chairman. Have you any doubt now that the award " No 
damages; for rental, 6,300 pesos,'" is a fair one? 

Colonel Hull. I have no doubt that the Jesuits, if you would offer 
that rent to .them for seven months or seven years to-day would not 
accept it at that rate. 

The Chairman. In other words, jou think that the Government is 
not doing any more than justice in making that award? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. What are the exhibit numbers on that 
case No. 2? 

The Chairman. Exhibits 9 to 12. 

CHURCH AND CONVENT AT PASAY. 

The Chairman. Let me read another item to show the character of 
work done by the board of which Colonel Hull was president: 

No. 5, clinrcli and convent at Pasay (Piueba), Rizal. Claim for rent and 
damages, ^=26,426.50. 

This property lias been i^ersonally examined, and payment of rental for the 
church, amounting to ?S50 ; rental for the convent, amounting to ?=2,700, and 
damages to both, amounting to ?=1,000, is recommended ; total of ?=4,550. 

We have disregarded the claim for rent for occupation during the last eight 
months, as it was occupied bv Company H, native police. 

(Exhibits 18-20.) 

In other words, the cut is from $13,213.25 to $2,275. You are 
familiar with the facts of that case, are you ? 

Colonel PIuLL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You made a personal inspection, did you? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And the board also ? 

Colonel Hull. In the company of Father Carnana, the Papal dele- 
gate's private secretary, who went with me that day and made the 
inspection. 

Mr. Garrett. ^¥liy did they put those claims up so ; what elements 
did they include? Did they include any elements which you ex- 
cluded ? 

CLAIMS FOR SACRED ORNAMENTS. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir ; in this case they claimed a great deal. 
My recollection is that there they claimed quite a number of sacred 
ornaments which I thought was more than any church in a town of 
that character would have in its possession, especially after the insur- 
gent's had been in occupation of the premises for a long time before 
we came and used that place. That was on one part of the line. It 
was used for some time as a hospital for our troops, and the damages 



24 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

I thought were slightly excessive and that the priest there had made 
rather an enlarged claim, especially in view of the nature of the orna- 
ments. What exhibits are those, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. They are exhibits from 18 to 20. 

Colonel Hull. There is also an old convento there Avhich he claimed 
had been entirely destroyed. The back part of the house was rotten ; 
the walls were poor, as well as the woodwork. We went around and 
looked at it, and he claimed that that had all been destroyed by the 
troops, but it bore the evidence of destruction by age to a great degree. 

Mr. Helm. How old a building is this ? 

Colonel Hull. In this case of Pasay it is probably an old, old 
church, 150 or 200 years old. The convento is probably fifty years old. 

Mr. Helm. What would be the reasonable value of a piece of prop- 
erty of that kind — the market value? 

Colonel Hull. That is a very difficult question to answer. We dis- 
cuss the question as to values of the property in the end portion of 
this report, and it was almost impossible to judge of the individual 
value of the buildings because they were erected so long ago. 

Mr. Jones. For special uses, I suppose? 

Colonel Hull. For special uses; they have no mercantile value and 
the only i^ossible value that could be put upon it would be how much 
it would cost to erect that building now. 

Mr. Helm. How does the value of property there, city property, 
compare — this was in the city was it ? 

Colonel Hull. It was in a little village near Manila, about 10 miles 
away. 

Mr. Helm. How does the value of real estate there compare with 
similar property in similar cities in America ? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, it is less. 

Mr. Helm. How much less? 

CHTJIICH AT PASAY. 

Colonel Hull. Well, you take Pasay, for instance. That church 
is about 10 miles from the city of Manila. Manila is a city of 300,000 
inhabitants. Pasay is building up ; it has quite a residential portion 
along the beach, and the value of the city property has increased 
probably two or three fold since our arrival in the city of Manila. I 
should imagine 3^ou could buj^ a little plot of land there — — • 

Mr. Helm. I am speaking of improved property in the city. 

Colonel Hull. It is almost impossible to compare conditions in the 
Philippines at any point with conditions in this country; they are 
local, you will realize. That was about as far as we went that day, 
Mr. Jones. It is one of those towns near the city of Manila that you 
reach on a street car. 

The Chairman. We have about reached the hour of adjournment. 
Colonel Hull, I will ask you this question : Are you a native of Iowa? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are a son of Representative Hull, the chair- 
man of the Committee on Militarj? Affairs of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, are you ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 25 

HIGH CHARACTEK, OF PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT. 

The Chairman. I desire to say a word about the supreme court of 
the islands. Some of the new members of the committee may not 
have had an opportunity to inform themselves concerning that court. 
Our people are apt to express doubt and distrust of its character and 
qualifications. Secretary Taft, while governor-general of the islands, 
testified before this committee in 1902, during the preparation of the 
Philippine civil government act, and among other things said that 
the supreme court of the Philippine Islands, which then consisted, as 
it now does, of seven members, four Americans and three, including 
the chief justice, native Filipinos, would compare favorably with 
any supreme court in the United States. 

Mr. Davis. Any State supreme court? 

The Chairman. Yes, any State supreme court. Chief Justice 
Arellano has been since given a decree of LL. D. by Yale. 

Mr. Garrett. Do I understand that we will have these opinions of 
that court published in this hearing? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. I want to say this before we adjourn. 
Secretary Taft promised me this morning that he would come here 
on Monday. He is very desirous of being heard on this proposition, 
with which he is thoroughly familiar. I hope that the members of 
the committee will be here as promptly as possible at 10 o'clock next 
Monday morning. Colonel Hull, we would like to have you here at 
that time. We shall reprint your itemized report so that the commit- 
tee may question you upon it. 

Colonel Hull. I am subject to the desires of the committee or any 
individual member of it. If there is any individual member between 
now and next Monday who wants to spend any time in familiarizing 
himself with these papers I am perfectly willing to await his pleasure 
at any time and place. 

The Chairman. We will meet at 10 o'clock Monday to hear Sec- 
retary Taft. 

The committee thereupon adjourned to meet on Monday, January 
20, 1908, at 10 o'clock a. m. 



PROCEEDINGS BOARD ON CHURCH CLAIMS. 



Headquarters Philippines Division, 

Manila^ P. /., January 15^ 1906. 
Proceedings of a board of officers convened at Manila, P. I., by 
virtue of the following order : 

Special Orders, \ Headquarters Philippines Division, 

No. 175. j Manila, P. I., July 31, 1905. 

[Extract.] 
******* 
3. In compliance witli instructions of the Secretary of War dated June 12, 
1905, a board of officers, to be known as the " Board on Cburcli Claims," is 
herelDy convened to meet at these headquarters at 9 o'clock a. m., August 1, 
1905, to investigate and report upon such claims as may be submitted to it from 
these headquarters. 

Detail for the Board: Lieut. Col. John A. Hull, judge-advocate; Lieut. Col. 
Alexander O. Brodie, military secretary; Maj. William W. Gibson, General 
Staff. 

The board, in the performance of the duties imposed on it, will be governed 
by instructions from these headquarters. 

* * * * * * * 

By command of Major-General Corbin : 

John G. D. Knight, 
Lieutenant-Colonel, General Staff, Chief of Staff. 
Official. 

W. A. Simpson, 

Military Secretary. ' 



Headquarters Philippines Division, 

Manila, P. /., August 1, 1906. 
The board met, pursuant to the foregoing order, at 9 o'clock a. m. 
Present: Lieut. Col. John A. Hull, j udge- advocate ; Lieut. Col. 
Alexander O. Brodie, military secretary;' Maj. William W. Gibson, 
General Staff. 

The order convening the board, and the instructions, consisting of 
an official copy of the opinion of the Judge- Advocate- General, of 
June 12, 1905, with the action of the Secretary of War thereon, were 
then read. Copy of instructions hereunto attached, marked "A." 

The board then commenced the consideration of the claims hereto- 
fore filed by Monseigneur A. A. Agius, archbishop of Palmyra, papal 
delegate. The president of the board was directed to notify the papal 
delegate that the board would meet each morning at 9 o'clock for the 
consideration of his claim, and that he could be present in person, or 
by such representatives as he might see fit, at the sessions of the board. 
The board thereupon adjourned. 

William W. Gibson, 
Major, General Staf. 

27 



28 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 

Headquarters Philippines Division, 

Manila, P. /., August 31, 1905. 
The board met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present : All the members. 

A copy of a letter written on August 3 to the military secretary 
requesting instructions is attached, marked " B." 

During the past month the board at its daily sessions has completed 
the following cases : 

[All sums are expressed in Conant.] 

No. 1. Cathedral of Manila. Amouut claimed ?17,818.42. 

The present cathedral was built between the years 1870 and 1879, upon 
plans approved by the minister of colonies at Madrid, and from funds con- 
tributed one-third by the faithful, one-third by the general island treasury, 
and one-third from the local funds. 

The board is informed by the church authorities that the title to the land 
on which this building is located is in the church. The bureau of archives 
reports that the antiquity of the archbishopric of Manila, which was founded 
in 1580, makes it impossible to determine the actual ownership of this land. 
This is one of the numerous buildings in the islands, known as buildings of 
the state. 

The question as to the title has never been decided, although it was con- 
sidered by Governor Taft, in 1903, in relation to the archbishop's palace at 
Nueva Caceres, in which case he held that it would not be advisable to 
come to a definite conclusion administratively, but would refer the question 
to the courts. As the only possible claimants can be the United States and 
the Catholic Church, no suit has been instituted, and the clergy is now in 
peaceful possession of the property. 

The cathedral was occupied immediately after the capitulation of the city 
of Manila, as barracks for prisoners of war, both Spanish and native, Span- 
ish and native troops being placed therein. It is impossible to learn whether 
this was done by an agreement between the Spanish general and the arch- 
bishop, but there can be no question that it was sanctioned by the United 
States military authorities, as, after the outbreak of hostilities on the 4th 
of February, guards were placed over the native prisoners of war so that 
they could not esq^pe and join the insurgents. 

The building received the hardest possible kind of treatment, due probably 
to the large number of prisoners using it, sometimes aggregating almost 
4,000 men. 

In view of the fact that the question has been considered by Colonel 

Crowder, General Otis, General Davis, and the present Secretary of War, 

we expressed no opinion as to the title, but recommend that rental at the 

rate of ?=1,500 per month for seven months, amounting to ?=10,500, and 

t damages to woodwork, etc., ?1,150, total ?=11,650, be paid. 

(Exhibits 1-8.) 
No. 2. Ateneo, of Manila, belonging to the Society of Jesus. Claim for rental 
and damages, ?=7,500. 

This building was occupied by a large number of officers and enlisted men 
of the Spanish prisoners of war for a period of seven months. We recom- 
mend payment of rental at ^00 per month for seven months, ?6,300. No 
damages. 

(Exhibits 9-12.) 
No. 3. Order of Mission of the .Jesuits of Santa Ana, Rizal. Claim for rental 
and damages, ?=500. 

This building was occupied by the Washington Volunteers for a short 
time, and it is recommended that payment of rental amounting to ?=400 be 
made. No damages. 

(Exhibit 13.) 
No. 4. Malate convent, Manila. Claim for rental and damages, P7,650. 

This building was occupied from about the 15th of August by two bat- . 
teries of artillery, and subsequently by Company B, Engineers. We recom- 
mend payment only of rental, amounting to ?=2,200, and that damages be 
not favorably considered; total, ?2,200. 

(Exhibits 14-17.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IIST PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 29 

# 

No. 5. Churcli and convent at Pasay (Pineba), Rizal. Claim for rent and dam- 
ages, ?=26,426.50. 

This property iias been personally examined, and payment of rental for 
the chnrcb, amounting to f*=850, rental for the convent, amounting to ?2,700, 
and damages to both, amounting to ^1 ,000, is recommended ; total of ?=4,550. 

We have disregarded the claim for rent for occupation during the last 
eight months, as it was occupied by Company H, native police. 

(Exhibits lS-20.) 
No. 6. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent at Paranaque, Rizal, 
amounting to ^=56,396.67. 

The church and convent at this place were greatly injured by the cannon- 
ading of the U. S. Monitor Monadnock during active hostilities, and we are 
informed that they were also injured during the hostilities incident to the 
insurrection of 1S96 and 1897. 

Damages done have been disregarded, as being an incident of warfare, 
and it is reconmiended that payment of rental for the church of 1P2,100, for 
the convent of ^4.296, and damages to both, amounting to ?4,000, be made; 
a total of 1P=10,396. 

(Exhibits 21-22.) 
No. 7. Rental and damages to convent and church at San Pedro Macati, Rizal, 
with occupation of the mission at Caliculi, amounting to ?8,219. 

We recommend payment for rental of convent, ^120 ; of the church, f>=180, 
and of the mission, ^140, together with damages to the church of ?=1,700, 
and con^•ent of ?800 ; a total of f=2,940. 

(Exhibits 23-25.) 
No. 8. Bagauga, Mindanao. Amount claimed for rental and damages, 1^825.35. 

We recommend the payment of 1P765 as rental. No damages. 

(Exhibits 26-27.) 
No. 9. Caraga, Mindanao. Claim for rental and damages amounting to ?115.34. 

We recommend the pavment of ?=90 as rental. No damages. 

(Exhibits 28-29.) 
No. 10. Aguta'ya, Cuyo. Claim for damages to convent amounting to ?=60. 

We recommend that this sum be allowed. 

(Exhibit .30.) 
No. 11. Puerto Princesa, Paragua. Claim for rental and domages amounting to 
?=700. 

We recommend that ?600 be allowed for rental. No damages. 

(Exhibits 31-32.) 
No. 12. Kalibo, Capiz. Claim for ^6,426.25 and F=21,903. 

The destruction of his property was an incident of war, and it is recom- 
mended that nothing be paid therefor. 

(Exhibit 33.). 
No. 13. Madalog, Capiz. Claim for damages, 1^57.50. 

Bishop Rooker has abandoned this claim in view of the action taken on 
the Agutaua claim (No. 10). 

(Exhibit 34.) 
No. 14. San Felipe Neri, Rizal. Rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^19,645.96. 

We recommend payment of rent amounting to ?=1,343.96, and damages to 
the floor in the church amounting to ?=270; total, ?=! ,613.96. 

(Exhibits 35-36.) 
No. 15. Dingle, Iloilo. Claim for damages to church and convent amounting to 
f=3,390. 

As the destruction was an incident of war, it is recommended that noth- 
ing be paid. 

(Exhibit 37.) 
No. 16. Pasig, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages to the church and convent 
and to the chapels in the suburbs amounting to ?62,680.10. 

It is recommended that ?=4,075 be paid as rental for the church and con- 
vent and storerooms, and that damages to the church and convent in the 
sum of f=3,000 be paid. It is recommended that no damages be paid for 
the destruction of the missions in the suburbs, the same being an incident 
of warfare. Total, ?=7,075. 

(Exhibits 38-39.) 
No. 17. Imus, Cavite. Claims amounting to ?4,210. 

We recommend allowance of rental for convent at ?60 per month, thirty 
and one-half months; total, ?=1,830. No damages. 

(Exhibits 40-41.) 



30 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 18. Naic, Cavite. Claim for rental and damages amounting to ?=3,007.90. 
We recommend jjaj^ment of rental claimed, ?2,687.00. No damages. 
(Exhibits 42-43.) 
No. 19. Silang, Cavite. Claims for rental and damages amounting to ^=5,460. 

We recommended allowance of reatal at ?=1.5(> per month for twenty-nine 
months, ?=4,.350, and damages, ?500: total, 1^4,850. 
(Exhibits 44-46.) 
No. 20. Las Marinas, Cavite. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
?=2,980. 

We recommend payment of rental at ?30 per month, thirtv-eight months, 
?],140, and damages, ?=200; total, ?=1.340. 
(Exhibits 47^8.) 
No. 21. Bulacan, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
^10,200. 

We recommend payment of rental, P5,400, and damages, ?=1,700; total, 
?=7,100. 

(Exhibits 49-50.) 
No. 22. Bustos, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to ?^72, 
We recommend payment of ?=75 as rental. No damages. 
(Exhibits 51-52.) 
No. 23. San Ildefonso, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
f=925. 

We recommend payment of rental, ?=125 ; damages, ?=.300 ; total, ^425. 
(Exhibits 53-54.) 
No. 24. San Miguel, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
?=3,800. 

We recommend payment of rental, ?=80 per month, for thirtv months. 
?=2,400, and damages, ?800 : total. ?=3,200. 
(Exhibits 55-56.) 
No. 25. Santa Isabel, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
?=1,017..50. 

We recommend payment of ?=25 as rental. No damages. 
(Exhibits 57-58.) 
No. 26. Santa Maria, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages amounting to 
1P96,5S0.50. 

*Ve recommend pajmient of ?f)20 as rental. No damages. 
(Exhibits 59-60.) 
No. 27. Baliuag, Bulacan. Claims for rental and damages, ^6,953.33. 

We recommend payment of rental. ?3,700 ; damages. 1F1,175 : total, 
?=4,875. , 

(Exhibits 61-62.) 
No. 28. Binangonan, Eizal. Claim for rental and damages to convent and 
church amounting to 1P7,475.50. 

We recommend payment of rental at 1P40 per month for forty-five months, 
?=1,S00. No damages. 
(Exhibits 63-65.) 
No. 29. Zamboanga, Mindanao. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent amounting to ?850. 

We recommend payment of ?=600 rental. No damages. 
(Exhibits 66-67.) 
No. 30. Siniloan, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to convent and church 
amounting to ?'7,461. 

We recommend payment of rental, twenty-six and one-half months, at ?*=40 
per month, ?=1,060, and damages amounting to ?=1,500: total, ?=2,560. 
(Exhibits 68-69.) 
No. 31. Mavitok, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent 
amounting to ?=6,445.75. 

We recommend payment of rental, nineteen months, at ^40 per month, 
^760, and damages. Pl.OOO: total. n,760. 
(Exhibits 70-71.) 
No. 32. Jolo, .Tolo. Claim for rental of church and convent amounting to 
?1,99S. 

We recommend payment of rent, choi-ch, twenty-five months, at P50 per 
month, ?1,250; convent, twenty-four and one-half months, at ?=20 per month, 
?=492 : total, ?=1,742. No damages. 
(Exhibits 72-74.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 31 

No. 33. Atimonan, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to f^7,T00. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-eight months, at ?150 per month, 
?5,700; damages, ?=400; total, ?=6,100. 
(Exhibits 75-77.) 
No. 34. Palanqui, Albay. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ?=1,050. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?400 ; damages, ?=100 ; total, ?500. 
(Exhibits 7S-S0.) 
No. 35. Camaligan, Ambos Camarines. Claim rental of convent amounting 
to ?=750. 

We recommend payment of rent, ^500. No damages. 
(Exhibit 81.) 
No. 36. Legaspi, Albay. Claim for rental and damage to church and convent 
amounting to ?1S,S97. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, ?500 : convent, forty-eight 
months, at ^150 per month, f=7,200 ; damages, f=2,000 ; total, ?9,700. 
(Exhibits 82-85.) 
No. 37. Lucena, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to ?=8,400. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=1,600 ; damages, ?=200 ; total, f*=l,800. 
(Exhibits 86-89.) 
No. 38. Camalig, Albay. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent 
amounting to ?5,124. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=700 ; damages, ?=400 ; total, ?=1,100. 
(Exhibits 90-92.) 
No. 39. San Fernando, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to 
church and convent amounting to ?=20,475. 

We recommend payment of rent, ^50, and that no damages be paid, as 
the destruction of these buildings was an incident of war. 
(Exhibits 93-95.) 
No. 40. Lucban, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damage to convent amounting 
to ?=5,981. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty months, at ?=80 per month, 
?=2,400 ; damages, ?=1,020 ; total, ?3,420. 
(Exhibits 96-97.) 
No. 41, Baao, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to convent 
amounting to ■?8,618. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=2,100 ; damages, ^175 ; total, ^^2,275. 
(Exhibits 98-100.) 
No. 42. Nabua, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to convent 
amounting to ?=10,527. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at ?200 per month, 
f=4,800; damages, f>=137; total, ?=4,937. 
(Exhibits 101-103.) 
No. 43. Buhi, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent amounting to ^5,762. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=2,500 ; damages, ?=77 ; total, ?"2,577. 
(Exhibits 104-105*.) 
No. 44. Libmanan, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental of church and convent, 
amounting to ?=9,000. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?6,000. No damages. 
(Exhibits 106-107.) 
No. 45. Daet, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to f^3,355. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=2,200. No damages. 
(Exhibits 108-109.) 
No. 46. Libon, Albay. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amounting to 
¥=1,440. 

We recommend payment of rent, #=240 ; damages, f*=200 ; total, ?440. 
(Exhibits 110-112.) 
No. 47. Sorsogon, Sorsogon. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=8,980. 

We recommend payment of rent, 54 months, at f>=50 per month, ?=2,700; 
damages, ?=665; total, ?3,365. 
(Exhibits 113-116.) 

25765—08 3 



32 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 48. Unisan Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amounting 
to ?880. 

We recommend payment of rent, eleven months, at ?=40 per month, P^440. 
No damages. 

(Exhibits 117-119.) 
No. 49. Sariaya, Tayabas. Claim for rental of convent, amounting to ?=2,500. 
We recommend that this sum be paid. No damages. 
(Exhibits 120-121.) 
No. So. Bato, Ambos Camarines. Claim for damages to con\'ent, amounting to 
?=240. 

We recommend that this sum be paid. No damages. 
(Exhibits 122-123.) 
No. 51. Bulan, Sorsogon. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amounting 
to ¥=18,780. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-five months, at M20 per month, 
?5,400; damages, ?1,000; total, ?6,400. 
(Exhibits 124-128.) 
No. 52. Tabaco, Albay. Claim for rent and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ?=13,145. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?'4,200 ; damages, ?=1,800 ; total, ?^,000. 
(Exhibits 129-131.) 
No. 53. Lopez, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to convent, ¥^3,264.04. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-four months, at ^60 per month, 
?=2,040; damages, ?=300; total, ?=2,340. 
(Exhibits 132-134.) 
No. 54. Gubat, Sorsogon. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to 'P3,750. 

We recommend payment of rent, five months, at ?=100 per month. ?=500 ; 
damages, F900: total, ?=1,400. 
(Exhibits 135-137.) 
No. 55. Yriga, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rent and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=4,255. 

We recommend payment of rent, 1^2,500 ; damages, ?=150 ; total, ?=2,650. 
(Exhibits 138-140.) 
No. 56. Bula, Ambos Camarines. Claim ?=500 for the burning of certain mis- 
sions. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, the destruction being an incident of 
wav. 

(Exhibit 141.) 
No. 57. Bulusan, Sorlogon. Claim ^144,745 for the destruction by burning of 
the church, convent, and missions of the town and its suburbs. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, the destruction being an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibits 142-143.) 
No. 58. Pilar, Sorsogon. Claim destruction of church and its effects, amounting 
to ?34,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibits 144-145.) 
No. 59. Dolores, Tayabas. Claim damages to church and convent by fire, 
amounting to ¥=12,470. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibit 146.) 
No. 60. Labo, Ambos Camarines. Claim damages to church, convent, and effects 
therein by fire, amounting to ¥=53,974.25. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibits 147-148.) 
No, 61. Jovellar, Albay. Claim damages to church, convent, and effects therein 
by fire, amounting to ¥=1,829. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibit 149.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IIST PPIILIPPINE ISLANDS. 3B 

No. 62. Manguirin, Ambos Camarines. Claim damages to church, conA'ent, and 
effects therein to the value of Fll,700. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibit 150.) 
No. 63. Alcala, Pangasinan. Claims rental for convent from November, 1899, to 
October, 1902, at ?=100 per month, ^,600. 

We recommend payment of rental for seven months at ?=40 per month, 
P280. No damages. 
(Exhibits 151-152.) 
No. 64. Aguilar, Pangasinan. Claims rental of and damages to convent amount- 
ing to ?1,651. 

We recommend payment of rental for twenty-one months at ^50 per 
month, ?=1,050, and damages in the sum of ^518 ; total, ?=1,56S. 
(Exhibits 153-154.) 
No. 65. Salasa, Pangasinan. Claim for rental, church and convent, eighteen 
months at ?=100 per month, ^1,800, and damages, ?=1,040. 

We recommend payment of rental for eighteen months at ^50 per month, 
^00, and damages in the sum of 1^=250 ; total. ?=1,150. 
(Exhibits 155-156.) 
No. 66. Urdanata, Pangasinan. Claim is for rental of convent at P=100 per 
month, twenty-seven months, ?=2,700, and for damages, ?240: total, 1^=2,940. 
We recommend payment of rental for twenty-seven months at ?=70 per 
month, ?=1,S90, and damages in the sum of T50 ; total, f*=l,940. 
(Exhibits 157-158.) 
No. 67. Santa Barbara, Pangasinan. Claim, rental for convent ?2,000, twenty 
months at PI 00 per month, and damages f=323.50: total, ?=2,323.50. 

We recommend payment of rent twenty months at ?50 per month, 
amounting to M.,000, and damages in the sum of ?=100 ; total, ^1,100. 
(Exhibits 159-160.) 
No. 68. Calasia, Pangasinan. Claim rent of convent thirty-three months at 
?=100 per month, f=3,300, and damages to church and convent in the sum 
of ?=291 ; total, ?=3,591. 

We recommend that the sum of ?=3,300 be paid, rental thirty-three months 
at ?=100 per month, and that no damages be considered ; total, ^3,300. 
(Exhibits 161-162.) 
No. 69. San Carlos, Pangasinan. Claim, rent of convent, twentv-seveu months, 
at f^lOO per month, ?=2,700, and damages ?=2,290; total, ?=4,990. 

We recommend that rent be paid for 28i months at P70 per month, 
?=1,995, and that f*^300 be paid for damages : total, ?=2,295. 
(Exhibits 163-164.) 
No. 70. Malasiqui, Pangasinan. Claim, rent of convent, ?2,250, and damages 
in the sum of ?=276 ; total, ?=2,826. 

We recommend that there be paid for rent of building the sum of ?1,125 
(22 J months at ?50), and for damages the sum of f=225 ; total, Pl,350. 
(Exhibits 165-166.) 
No. 71. Bayambang, Pangasinan. Claim is for 1P5,700 rental for convent, and 
?=1,141 for damages ; total, ?=6,841. 

We recommend the payment of ?=2,700 rental, forty-five months at ?^0 
per month,- and f=300 for damages; total. P3.000- 
(Exhibits 167-168.) 
No. 72. Urbistondo, Pangasinan. Claim for rent of convent P150, and damages 
to same in the sum of P198 ; total, P.34S. 

We recommend that rental be paid in the sum of ?1,890 (twenty-seven 
damages; total, 1P=1S5. 
(Exhibits 169-170.) 
No. 73. San Ysidro, Pangasinan. Claim is for rental in the sum of ?=559 for 
convent, and damages in the sum of ?=153; total, P712. 

We recommend that rental be paid in the sum of f=480, and that P20 be 
paid for damages ; total, ?=500. 
(Exhibits 171-172.) 
No. 74. Sual, Pangasinan. Claim is for ^1,440. rent of convent, and for ?=1,254 
damages ; total, P2,694. 

We recommend that rental be paid for twenty-four months at ?=30 per 
month, amounting to 1*720, and that damages be not considered; total, 
?=720. 

(Exhibits 173-174.) 



34 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 75. Pozorrubio, Pangasinal. Claim is for rental of convent, ^"2,700, and 
damages in the sum of ?=101 ; total, f>=2,801. 

We recommend that rental be paid in the sum of Pl,890 (twenty-seven 
months at ?=70), and that there be paid for damages the sum of ?=40; total, 
?=1,930. 

(Exhibits 175-176.) 
No. 76. Mangaterem, Pangasinan. Claim is for rent and damages to convent 
and boys' school in the sum of ?=4,223. 

We recommend that rental be paid for twenty-four months at ?=70 per 
month, amounting to ?1,680, and that for damages there be paid the sum 
of ^220 ; total, P=l,900. 

(Exhibits 177-178.) 
No. 77. Villasis, Pangasinan. The claim is for rental of and damages to the 
convent in the total sum of ?=2,045 (rental T9S0, and damages ^1,115). 

We recommend that rental be paid in the sum of P735, and that there be 
paid for damages the sum of ?=250 ; total, 1P9S5. 

(Exhibits 179-180.) 
No. 78. Saaita Maria, Pangasinan. The claim is for rental of and damages to 
the convent in the sum of ?=960. 

We recommend that rental be paid in the sum of ?=240 (twelve months at 
P20 per month), and that damages be not considered; total, ^P240. 

(Exhibits 180-182.) 
No. 79. Binmaley, Pangasinan. The claim is for rental of and damages to the 
church and convent, amounting to 1P1,070. 

We recommend that rent be paid for eight months at the rate of ?=20 per 
month, amounting to ?=160, and that damages be not considered : total, M.60. 

(Exhibits 183-184.) 
No. 80. San Fabian, Pangasinan. The claim is for rental of and damages to con- 
vent and church, amounting to the sum of ?7,142.75. 

We recommend that rent be paid for thirty-seven months, at the rate, of 
?55 per month, amounting to ?2,035, and that there be paid for damages the 
sum of f=250 ; total, ?=2,285. 

(Exhibits 185-186.) 
No. 81. Dagupan, Pangasinan. The claim is for rental of and damages to the 
convent in the sum of ?11',481.48. 

We recommend that rent be paid in the sum of ?5,250 (forty-two months 
at "^125 per month) and damages in the sum of ^500: total, ?5,750. 

(Exhibits 187-188.) 
No. 82. Santa Maria, Ilocos Sur. The claim is for ?=3,054 for rental of and dam- 
ages to convent and church. 

We recommend that rent be paid for twenty-nine months at f*^2 per 
month, amounting to ?=1,798, and that there be paid for damages the sum of 
^100; total, f=l,898. 

(Exhibits 189-190.) 
No. 83. Candon, Ilocos Sur. The claim is for the sum of ^2,800 for rental of and 
damages to the convent. 

We recommend payment of rent for twenty-seven and one-half months, at 
f=60, amonnting to ?1,650, and for damages the sum of ?=120 ; total, 1^1,770. 

(Exhibits 191-192.) 
No. 84. Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental of and damages to convent in 
the sum of ^=2,725.25. 

We recommend payment of rent in the sum of ?=1,250 (twenty-flve months 
at ?=50), and for damages the sum of ?=400 ; total, M,650. 

(Exhibits 193-194.) 
No. 85. Magsingal, Ilocos Sur. The claim is for rental of and damages to con- 
vent in the sum of ?2,184. 

We recommend payment of rent in the sum of 1P840 (convent, thirteen 
months, at ?=55, and church, five months, at ?=25), and for damages the sum 
of FlOO; total, ?940. 

(Exhibits 195-196.) 
No. 86. Lapo, Ilocos Sur. The claim is for rental of and damages to convent in 
the sum of ?1,777. 

We recommend that rent be paid in the sum of F765, seventeen months at 
f=45, and damages to the sum of ?=125 ; total. FS90. 

(Exhibits 196-197.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTE ISLANDS. 35 

No. ST. Santo Domingo, Uocos Sur. The claim is for rental of and damages to 
convent in the sum of ?=1,474. 

We recommend payment of rental, sixteen months at f^45 per month, 
amounting to f>'720, and that ^'SO be paid for damages ; total, ?=S00. 
(Exhibits 196 and 198.) 
No. 88. Tagudin, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent. amount- 
ing to ?=950. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ?=32.50 per month, 
f=585; damages, ?=15 ; total, F600. 
(Exhibits 199-200.) 
No. 89. Bantay, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to f=679.10. 

We recommend payment of rent, eight and one-half months, at ?40 per 
month, ?=340 ; damages, ?150 ; total, f=490. 
(Exhibits 201-202.) 
No. 90. Santa Cruz, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to coijvent 
amounting to ^2,086. 

We recommend payment of rent, eleven months, at ^"60 per month, ?=660 ; 
damages, 1P140; total, f=S00. 
(Exhibits 203-204.) 
No. 91. San Vicente, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental of convent, ^135. 

We recommend payment of rent amounting to ^0 ; no damages ; total, 



(Exhibits 205-206.) 
No. 92. Santa Lucia, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent 
warehouse and garden amounting to ?1,428.10. 

We recommend payment of rent, nine months, at ^45 per month, 1P405; 
• damages, ^100 ; total, ?=505. 
(Exhibits 207-208.) 
No. 93. Santa, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ?=2,520. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty months, at ^50 per month, 
^1,000; damages, f=100; total, 1P=1,100. 
(Exhibits 209-210.) 
No. 94. Cabugao, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to f=4,315. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ¥=50 per month, 
?=900; damages, ?=1,000; total, ?=1,900. 
(Exhibits 211-212.) 
No. 95. Badoc, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to P2,821. 

We recommend paj'ment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ¥^30 per month, 
?=S10; damages, ?=200; total, ^1,010. 
(Exhibits 212-213.) 
No. 96. Sinait, Ilocos Snr. Claim for rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to ¥=2,484.50. 

We recommend payment of rental, eleA'en months, at ¥=40 per month, 
¥=440 ; damages, ¥=460 ; total, ¥=900. 
• (Exhibits 212-214.) 
No. 97, San Fernando, Union. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent amounting to ¥=34,416.66. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-one months, at ¥=120 per month, 
¥4,920. We recommend that nothing be paid for damages, destruction, and 
Incident of war ; total, ¥=4,920. 
(Exhibits 215-216.) 
No. 98. Santa Tomas, Union. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent amounting to ¥=3,650. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-six months, at ¥=25 per month, 
¥=650; damages, ¥=100; total, ¥=750. 
(Exhibits 217-218.) 
No. 99. Balaon, Union. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting to 
¥=2,548.32. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five and one-half months, at 
¥=60 per month, ¥=1,530 ; damages, ¥=45 ; total, ¥=1,575. 
(Exhibits 219-220.) 



3;6 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 100. Bacnotan, Union. Claim for rental and damages to convent and 
church amounting to ^695. 

We recommend payment of rent, eleven months at ?=30 per month, ?330 ; 
no damages ; total, ^.3.30. 
(Exhibits 221-222.) 
No. 101. Namacpacan, Union. Claim for fental and damages to convent 
amotmtiug to P3,141.60. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=1,313 ; damages, PS7; total, ?1,400. 
(Exhibits 223-224.) 
No. 102. Nagnilian, Union. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent amounting to ?=2,355. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five and one-half months at ^45 
per month, 1^1,147.50; damages, f=100; total, ?1, 247.50. 
(Exhibits 225-226.) 
No. 103. Bangar, Union. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ^2,228. 

W^ recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months at ?40 per month, 
?=1,0S0; damages, P=150; total, P^l,230. 
(Exhibits 227-228.) 
No. 104. Aringay, Union. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ?=6,000. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-six months at ?=S0 per month, 
?=2,0S0; damages, ?=200: total, ?=2,280. 
(Exhibits 229-230.) 
No. 105. Bangued, Abra. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent 
amoimting to ?=4,930.66. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven and two-thirds months, at 
f=65 per month, ?=1,800; church, 1^80; damages, ?=500; total, ?=2.3S0. 
(Exhibits 321-232.) 
No. 106. Bucay, Abra. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amounting to 
1^730. 

We recommend payment of rent, eleven and one-lialf months, at P30 per 
month, ?=345 ; damages, 1P125 : total, ?=470. 
(Exhibits 233-234.) 
No. 107. Tayum, Abra. Claim for rental and damages to convent amounting to 
¥=1,096..50. 

We recommend payment of rent, six months, at ?30 per month. ?=180; 
damages, ^200; total, ?=.380. 
(Exhibits 234-235.) 
No. 108. San .Juan, A]jra. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent 
amounting to ?=1,752. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, eighteen months, at P=12A per 
month, ?=225. Convent, eighteen months, at ?=25 per month, ?=4.50 ; damages, 
?=50 ; total, ?=725. 
(Exhibits 236-234.) 
No. 109. San Gregorio, Abra. Claims rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?=2,244. 

We recommend payment of rent, seventeen months at 1^=30, ?510: dam- 
ages, F60: total, f=570. 
(Exhibits 237-238.) 
No. 110. Dolores, Abra. Claims rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
1^=4,620. 

We recommend payment of rent, seventeen months at ^25, P425. No dam- 
ages. 

(Exhibits 238-239.) 
No. 111. La Paz, Abra. Claims rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
?=2,586. 

We reconnnend payment of rent, seven months at f*=35, f*=245 : damages, 
^200: total. ?=445. 

(Exhibits 2.38 and 240.) 
No. 112. Pidigan. Abra. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
M.,875.90. 

We reconnnend pavment of rent, fourteen months at ?30, f*=420: damages, 
^200; total, ?=620. ' 
(Exhibits 241-242. "» 



CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 37 

No. 113. Carig, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, chnrcli and convent, 
amounting to ?1,400. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five months at f>=30, ?=T.50 ; dam- 
ages, ?100; total, ?=850. 
(Exhibits 243-244.) 
No. 114. Reina Mercedes, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amount- 
ing to FS50. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-tvpo and one-half months at 1^=20 
per month, ?450: damages, ¥150; total, ?600. 
(Exhibits 245-246.) 
No. 115. Exchague, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
- ¥=5,088. 

We recomend pajanent of rent, thirty-two months at ¥=60 per month, 
¥1,920; damages, ¥=200; total, ¥=2,120. 
(Exhibits 247-248.) 
No. 116. Cordon, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥1,106. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-eight months at ¥=10 per month, 
¥=280, and no damages. 
(Exhibits 249-250.) 
No. 117. Tumanini, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥=4,100. 

We recommend pavment of rent, ¥2,500 ; damages, ¥=175 ; total, ¥2,675. 
(Exhibits 251-252.) 
No. 118. Ilagan, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥=3,741.12. 

We recommend pavment of rent, thirty-seven months at ¥60 per month, 
¥=2,220; damages, ¥300; total, ¥2,520. 
(Exhibits 253-254.) 
No. 119. Cauaj^an, Isabela. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥=2.723. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-one months, at ¥40 per month, 
¥=840. No damages. 
(Exhibits 255-256.) 
No. 120. Moncada, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥=3,820.91. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ?65 per month, 
¥=1,755; damages, ¥=320; total, ¥=2,075. 
(Exhibits 257-258.) 
No. 121. Camiling, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥2,169. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-eight months, at ¥60 per month, 
¥1,680; damages, ¥=225; total, ¥=1,905. 
(Exhibits 259-260.) 
No. 122. Gerona, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=3,951. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty- six months, at ¥70 per month, 
¥=1,820; damages, ¥200; total, ¥=2,020. 
(Exhibits 261-263.) 
No. 128. Panigui, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=4,130. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥2,520 ; damages, ¥=250 ; total, ¥=2,770. 
(Exhibits 264-266.) 
No. 124. Pura, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, amount- 
ing to ¥1,963. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥=650 ; damages, ¥=150 ; total, ¥800. 
(Exhibits 267-268.) 
No. 125. Alcala, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥1,569. 

We recommend pavment of rent, twenty-six months, at ¥80 per month, 
¥=2,080 ; damages, ¥=400 ; total, ¥=2,480. 
(Exhibits 269-270.) 
No. 126. Pamplona, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
¥1,443. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at ¥=40 per month, ¥=480 ; 
damages, ¥=150 ; total, ¥=630. 
(Exhibits 271-272.) 



38 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 127. Buguey, CagayaJi. Claim rental convent, amounting to ^2,100. 
We recommend payment of rent in the sum of ?350. No damages. 
(Exhibits 273-274.) 
No. 128. Camalaniugan, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=1,231. 

We recommend payment of rent, tw^enty-two months, at ^^25 per month, 
?^550 ; damages, ?75 ; total, P625. 
(Exhibits 275-276.) 
No. 129. Iguig, Cagayan. Claim rental for convent, amounting to ^50. 

We recommend that this sum be paid, the records at these headquarters 
showing that the town was occupied as claimed by church. 
No. 130. Gataran, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages convent, amounting to 
?=1,70S.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-eight months, at ?40 per month, 
1^1,120. No damages. 
(Exhibits 278-279.) 
No. 131. Amuluug, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages convent amounting to 
?630. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=300 ; and damages, ?=250 ; total, ^550. 
(Exhibits 280-281.) 
No 132. Aparri, Cagayan. Claim rent and damages church and convent amount- 
ing to ^=20,350. 

We recommend payment of rent, fifty-five mouths at ?\L50 per month, 
?=8,250, in full for. all rent and damages ; total, ?=S,250. 
(Exhibits 282-284.) 
No. 133. Lalloc, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting to 
f=3,211. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months at f^60 per month, 
?=1,440; also eighteen months at f=20 per month, ?=360; and damages, ?=100; 
total, M.,900. 

(Exhibits 285-286.) 
No. 134. Claneria, Cagayan. Claim rental and damages convent, amounting to 
1P=1,303. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-two months at ?50 per month, 
?=1,100 ; damages, ?=150 ; total, tP=1,250. 
(Exhibits 287-288.) 
No. 135. Cervantes, Lepanto-Bantoc. Claim rental and damages to convent 
amounting to 1P=970. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=400. No damages. 
(Exhibits 289-290.) 
No. 136. Angaqui, Lepanto-Bantoc. Claim rental convent amounting to ?=240. 
We recommend payment of rent, 1P240. No damages. 
(Exhibits 291-292.) 
No. 137. Pasiquin, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental convent amounting to ?=1,600. 

We recommend pajanent of rent, eighteen months, at ?10 per month, ?180. 
No damages. 

(Exhibits 29.3-295.) 
No. 138. San Nicholas, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent 
amounting to ?3,439. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at P35 per month, 
?630 ; damages, ^125 ; total, ?=755. 
(Exhibits 296-297.) 
No. 139. Batac, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ?=5,570. 

We recommend payment of rent, nineteen months, at ?=25 per month, ^475 ; 
damages, ?=170 ; total, ?645. 
(Exhibits 297-298.) 
No. 140. Paoay, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent amoimting 
to ?=5,167. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-one months, at ?=25 per month, 
?525; damages, ?=170 ; total, -^^695. 
(Exhibits 299-300-297.) 
No. 141. San Miguel, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent amount- 
ing to ^=3,988.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-six months, at P50 per month, 
1^1,300 ; damages, ^110 ; total, ?1,410. 
(Exhibits 301-302.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 39 

No. 142. Bangui, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental convent amounting to ^1,3-50. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ?=15 per month, 
?405. No damages. 
(Exhibits 302-303.) 
No. 143. Vintar, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent amoimting 
to f=4,245. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirteen months, at ?=30 per mouth, ?390 ; 
damages, ?=45 ; total, ^435. 
(Exhibits 302-304.) 
No. 144. Piddig, Ilocos, Norte. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ?=4,405. * 

We recommend payment of rent, fourteen months, at 1*30 per month, ?420 ; 
damages, ?=205 ; total, ¥=625. 
(Exhibits 305-306.) 
No. 144. Piddig, Ilocos Norte. Claim and rental damages to convent amounting 
to f=4,393. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ^35 per month, 
?945 ; damages, ?=340 ; total, ¥=1,285. 
(Exhibits 306-307.) 
No. 146. Bana, Ilocos Norte. Claim rental convent amounting to ¥=50. 
We recommend payment of rent for one month, ¥=5. No damages. 
(Exhibits 308-306.) 
No. 147. Bg,carra, Ilocos Norte. Claim rent and damages to convent amounting 
to ¥=1,385. 

We recommend payment of rent, seven months, at ¥=20 per mouth, ¥=140; 
damages, ¥=185 ; total, ¥=325. 
(Exhibit 309.) 

The board thereupon adjourned to meet from day to day at 9 
o'clock a. m. 

W. W. Gibson, 

Major^ General Staff. 



Headquarters Philippines Division, 

Manila, P. /., September 7, 1905. 
The board met pursuant to adjournment. ^ 

Present: All the members. 
The following order was then read : 

Headquartees Philippines Division, 

Manila, P. I., August 30, 1905. 
Special Oedeks, \ 
No. 198. J 

[Extract.] 

^ H: ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 

9. First Lieut. John W. Moore, Second Cavalry, is detailed as a member of 
the board of officers appointed by paragraph 3, Special Orders, No. 175, current 
series, these headquarters, known as the " Board on church claims," vice Maj. 
William W. Gibson, General Staff, hereby relieved. 

While on this duty Lieutenant Moore's station will be Manila. The travel 
enjoined is necessary for the public service. 

By command of Major-General Corbin : 

John D, Knight, 
Lieutenant- Colonel, General Staff, 

Chief of Staff. 
Official : 

W. A. Simpson, 

Military Secretary. 

Major Gibson then withdrew and First Lieut. John W. Moore took his place 
as a member of the board. 



40 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The following ca&es were tlien considered and passed : 
No. 148. Angat, Bulacan. Claim damages to church and convent by fire amount- 
ing to ^72,100. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 310-811.) 
No. 149. Bigaa, Bnlacau. Claim damages to church and convent hy fire amount- 
ing to ?=81,800. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 312-313.) 
No. 150. Bocaue, Bulacan. Claim damages to church and convent by fire, 
amounting to f^l21,996. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 314-315.) 
No. 151. Calumpit, Bulacan. Claim damages to church and convent by fire, 
amounting to ?=56,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 316-317.) 
No. 152. Mariloa, Bulacan. Claim damages to church and convent by fire, 
amounting to 1P123,296. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits .318-319.) 
No. 153. Norzagaray, Bulacan. Claim rent and damages to ckurch, amount- 
ing to P2,000. 

We recommend payment of rent ?300. No damages. 
(Exhibits 320-321.) 
No. 154. Obando, Bulacan. Claim rental and damages church and convent, 
amounting to ^2,677. 

We recommend payment of rent, eight months, at 1P50 per mouth, ?400. 
No damages. 

(Exhibits 322-323.) 
No. 155. Paombong, Bulacan. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting 
to ^1,174. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at ?75 per month, ?900 ; 
damages, ?=50; total, ?=950. 
(Exhibits 324-825.) 
No. 156. Polo, Bulacan. Claim rental and damages to church and convent 
amounting to ^19,995. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty months, at ?^0 per month, 
?=1,800; damages, ?=350; total, ?=2,150. 
(Exhibits 326-327.) 
No. 157. Pulilan, Bulacan. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting to 
?=1,120. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ?=40 per month, 
?=720 ; damages, f=400 ; total, ?1,120. 
(Exhibits 328-329.) 
No. 158. Santa Isabel, Bulacan. Claim damages to church property amounting 
to ^1,017.50. (Duplicate and revoked, see case No. 25.) 

We recommend that nothing be paid on this claim. Even if done by 
American soldiers the damage was purely wanton. 
(Exhibit 330.) 
No. 159. San Rafael, Bulacan. Claim rental and damages, convent, amoimting 
to ?3,216.66. 

We recommend that nothing be paid on this claim. Even if done by 
^=980, and damages, ?=1,300 ; total, f=2,2S0. 
(Exhibits 331-333.) 
No. 160. Balayan, Batangas. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting 
to ?=5,169.25. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-one months, at 9^5 per month, 
?3,485, and damages, ^350 ; total, f=3,835. 
(Exhibits 334, 335.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IM PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 41 

No. 161. Lemery, Batangas. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting 
to 1^7,218. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-two months, at ?=65 per month, 
?=2,730 ; damages, ?=325 ; total, ?=3,055. 

(Exhibits 335, 337.) 
No. 162. Lipa, Batangas. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ^=11,092.75. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-four months, at ?=20 per month, 
f^SSO, only. 

(Exhibits 838, 339.) 
No. 163. Tarlac, Tarlac. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?=8,133. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-eight months, at ?50 per month, 
^1,900 ; damages, ?=500 ; total, P2,-100. 

(Exhibits 340, 341.) 
No. 164. San Jose, I3ataugas. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting 
to ^3,905. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-seven months, at ?=80 per month, 
?2,960 ; damages, ?=170 ; total, ?=3,130. 

(Exhibits 342, 344.) 
No. 165. Santo Tomas, Batangas. Claim rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ^19.304. 

We recommend payment of rent, eight months, at ^100 per month, for 
church, ^800; forty-four months, at ?=90 per month, for convent, ^3,960; 
damages, T*1,000; total, ?^5,760. 

(Exhibits 345-347.) 
No. 166. Lobo, Batangas. Claim rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^1,887.85. 

We recommend payment of rent, twentv-one months, at ?=40 per month, 
?=840; damages, ?=100 ; total, f=940. 

(Exhibit 348-355.) 
No. 167. Santa Cruz, Marinduque. Claim rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^"5,065. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, eight months, at ?=70 per month, 
1P560 ; convent, twenty-one months, at ?=70 per month, ?=1,470 ; damages, 
?=274; total, ?=2,304. 

(Exhibits 356-358.) 
No. 168. Calapan, Mindoro. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?=2,298. 

We recommend payment of rent, fifteen months, at ?40 per month, 'F600 ; 
damages, ?700; total, ?1,300. 

(Exhibits 359, 360.) 
No. 169. Pola, Mindoro. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting to 
?=4,810. 

We recommend payment of rent, twentv-seven months, at f=30 per month, 
?=810; damages, ^800; total, ?1,610. 

(Exhibits 361, 362.) 
No. 170. Anda, Zambales. Claim rental and damages to convent amounting to 
?=265. 

We recommend payment of rent, four and one-half months, at ^30 per 
month, T1S5 ; damages, ^40 ; total, ^175. 

(Exhibits 363, 364.) 
No. 171. Alaminos, Zambales. Claim rental and damages to convent, amounting 
to ^1,900. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-eight months, at ^"50 per month, 
?=1,400; damages, ?=50; total, ?1,450. 

(Exhibits 365, 366.) 
No. 172. San Isidro, Zambales. Claim rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to TSiO. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-three months, at 'f=30 per month, 
?=690; damages, ^150; total, ?840. 

(Exhibits 367, 368.) 
No. 173. Santa Cruz, Zambales. Claim rental and damages, convent, amounting 
to ^8,276.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty months, at ?=40 per month, Pl,200 ; 
damages, ?=1,165; total, 1^2,365. 

(Exhibits 369, 370.) 



42 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 

No. 174. Masinloc, Zambales. Claim rental and damages, cliurch and convent, 
amoimting to P2,251. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty months, at -P=.3,5 per month, f 1,050 ; 
damages, ^200; total, ?1,250. 
(Exhibits 371, 372.) 
No. 175. Infanta, Zambales. Claim damages to convent in the sum of ?=420. 
We recommend payment of ?=300 as damages. 
(Exhibits 373, 374.) 
No. 176. Boac, Zambales. Claim rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?=8,909.75. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, twenty-two months, at ^80 per 
month, ?1,660 ; convent, twenty-six months, at P70 per month, IPl ,820 : 
damages, ?=628; total, ?=4,108. 
No. 177. Malitbog, Leyte. Claim damages to church and convent by loot and 
fire amounting to ?=2,809. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the damage inflicted was either 
an incident of war or wanton damages. 
(Exhibits 379, 380 and B.) 
No. 178. San Sabastiau, Samar. Claim damages to church and convent by fire, 
amounting to ^12,300.20. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibit 381.) 
No. 179. Paranas, Samar. Claim damages to church, convent, and mission, by 
fire, amounting jto ?=96,123. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 382, 383.) 
No. 180. Wright, Samar. Claim damages to church, convent, and effects, by 
fire, amounting to ?=108,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibit 384.) 
No. 181. Inabanga (Loay), Bohol. Claim damages to church, convent, and 
effects, by fire, amounting to 'F22,377. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibit 385.) 
No. 182. Antequera, Bohol. Claim rental of convent, amounting to ?=60; no 
damages. * 

We recommend that this amount be paid. 
(Exhibit 386.) 
No. 183. Lila, Bohol. Claim damages to church, convent, and effects, by Are, 
amounting to ^20,479.75. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibit 387.) 
No. 184. Sevilla (Loay), Bohol. Claim damages to church, convent, and effects, 
by fire, amounting to f>=14,052. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibit .388.) 
No. 185. Bogo, Cebu. Claim rental, church and convent, amounting to PI60; no 
damages. 

We recommend that this amount be paid. 
(Exhibits 389, 390.) 
No. 186. Calbayog, Samar. Claim rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^8,079.17. 

We recommend payment of rent, old convent, thirty-two months, at P=50, 
?=1,600; new convent, thirty-two months, at F50, ^^1,600; church, five 
months, at P60, ?300 ; damages, 1P300 ; total. 1P3,S00. 
(Exhibits 391-395.) 
No. 187. Balamban, Cebu. Claim rent for convent, amounting to ?400. No dam- 
ages. 

We recommend payment of rent, seven mouths, at ?30 per inonth, f*210. 
(Exhibits 396, 397.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IlsT PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 43 

No. ]SS. Misamis, Mindanao. Claun rental and d;unaa;e,«. convent, amonntin2; to 
f^2,900. 

We recommend payment of rent, tweiity-seven months, at ?=.S0 per montli, 
?2,160. No damages. 

(Exhibits 39S. 400.) 
No. 189. Balingasay (Misamis), Mindanao. Claim rental, convent, amonnting to 
^220. (Five and one-half months, at ^40 per month.) No damages. 

We recommend that this amonnt be paid. 

(Exhibits 401, 402.) 
No. 190. Carigara, Leyte. Claim rental and damages, convent, amonnting to 
f»^l,71S. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=1,400 ; damages, ?=25 ; total, ?^1,42.5. 

(Exhibits 403-408.) 
No. 191. Laoang, Samar. Claim rental and damages, chnrch, conxent, and 
effects, amonnting to ^=15,325. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-two months, at -P50 per month, 
?^2,100; damages, ?=1,090; total, f=3,190. 

Damages to personal effects not considered, as, even if e\ idence conld be 
produced to substantiate claim, it would be for wanton damages. ("See Ex- 
hibit B.) 

(Exhibits 409-413.) . 
No. 192. Catubig. Samar. Claim damages to church and effects, by burning, 
amounting to ?=560. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, the destruction being an incident of 
war. 

(Exhibits 413-414.) 

The board adjourned to meet from day to day at 9 o'clock a. m. 

J. W. Moore, 

First Lieutenant^ Second Gavalry. 



Headquarters Philippine Division, 

Manila, P. /., September SO. 1905. 
The board met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members. 

The board then proceeded to consider and pass upon the following 
cases : 

No. 193. Cabuyao, Laguna. Claim for rontal and damages to con^-ent, amount- 
ing to ?S,520. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty months, at tP90 per month, 1^3,600; 
damages, ?=400; total, f^4,000. 
(Exhibits 415, 416.) 
No. 194. Bay, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and con-^^ent, 
amounting to ?12,G6G. 

We recommend payment of rent — church, 1P150 ; convent, 25 months, at 
?60 per month, ^1.500 ; damages, ?=400 ; total, ^2,050. 
(Exhibits 417, 418.) 
No. 195. Binau, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to ?=8,425. 

We recommend payment of rent, 44 months, at ^120 per month, ?5,280; 
damages, ?=87.50; total, ?5,367.50. 
(Exhibits 419, 420.) 
No. 196. Paete, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to 1P16,091.16. 
We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ?=125 per 
month, ?=3,375. No damages. 
(Exhibits 421, 422.) 
No. 197. Pakil, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to 
f^2,S88.25. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty months, at ?=60 per month, 
f»=l,200 ; damages, f=200 ; total, ^1,400. 
(Exhibits 423, 424.) 



44 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 198. Los Banos, Lagima. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ^4,662.20. 

We recommend payment of rent — convent, forty-six months, at ?=40 per 
month, ^1,840: church, forty-two months, at ^Q per month, ?=252; dam- 
ages, f=450; total, f=2,542. 
(Exhibits 425, 426.) 
No. 199. Magdalena, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to 
?=5,830.62. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-nine months, at ?^0 per month, 
?=1,740; damages, ?=200; total, ?=1,940. 
(Exhibits 427,428.) 
No. 200. Bauan, Batangas. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ^8,700. 

We recommend pajanent of rent, forty-one months, at KL50 per month, 
?=6,150; no damages; total, ?6,150. 
(Exhibits 429-430.) 
No. 201. Alorong. Rizal. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to P6,100.50. 
We recommend payment of rent, ?=1,925 ; damages, ?=200 ; total, P2,125. 
(Exhibits 431-432.) 
No. 202. Las Pinas, Rizal. 'Claim for rental and damages, amounting to f*=l,S50. 
We reconnnend payment of rent, five months, at 1P30 per month, ^50 ; 
no damages;" total, ?=150. 
(Exhibits 433-434.) 
No. 203. Navotas, Rizal. Claim damages amounting to ?=3,248.85. 

We recommend paj'ment of no damages. The church not occupied, and 
damages purely wanton, if occurred as stated. (See Exhibits B and C and 
435.) 
No. 204. Taguiig, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages, amounting to P20,920. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-three months, at ?^0 per month, 
?=2,970; damages. ?=500; total, ?=3,470. 
(Exhibits 436-437.) 
No. 205. Caloocan, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ?=102,120. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, thirty months, at 1P40 per month, 
?=1,200; convent, fifteen months, at ?=60 per month, ?^00; damages, ?200; 
total, ?=2.300. 

(Exhibits 438-439.) 
No. 206. San Pablo, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=44,389.90. 

We recommend payment of rent for church and convent, ?2,500; dam- 
ages, ?=600 ; total, P3,100. 
(Exhibits 440-442.) 
No. 207. San Antonio, Lagvma. Claim for damages to church and convent, 
amounting to f^70,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as this was an incident of war. 
(Exhibit 443.) 
No. 208. Meycauayan, Bulacan. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=5,565. 

We recommend payment of i*ent, thirty months, at ?K30 per month, Pl,800 ; 
no damages ; total, ^1,800. 
(Exhibits 444. 445.) 
No. 209. San Isidro, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to chiu'ch and 
convent, amounting to f=7,543.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-four months, at ^"75 per month, 
1^=3,300 ; damages, ?=250 ; total, f=3.550. 
(Exhibits 446-148.) 
No. 210. Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?=6,672. 

We recommend payment of rent, convent, forty-four months, at P65 per 
month, ?=2,860; church, fourteen months, at P45 per (month, ?630; damages, 
?=500; total, ?3.990. 
(Exhibits 449, 450.) 

<» Damages either an incident of war or claim against insular government. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 45 

No. 211. Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to churcli and 
convent amounting to ¥'3,420.87. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at ?50 per mouth, 
?1,200 ; damages, ?=500 ; total, ?=1,700. 
(Exhibits 451, 452.) 
No. 212. Batang, Batangas. Claim for damages by loot and fire to buildings 
and effects, amounting to ?=7,500. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits B, C, and 453.) 
No. 213. Alaminos, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=4,020. 

We recommend payment of rent, convent, twenty-three months, at ?'40 
per month, ¥=920 ; church, four months, at #^25 per month, ¥=100 ; danjages, 
?200; total, ¥=1,220. 
(Exhibits 454, 455.) 
No. 214. Tambobong, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ¥=380. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥=180, and damages, ¥=100 ; total, ¥=280.. 
(Exhibit 456.) 
No. 215. Pangil, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=3,475.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-three months, at ?75 per month, 
¥=1,725 ; damages, ¥=250 ; total, ¥=1,975. 
(Exhibits 457, 458.) 
No. 216. Samal, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amounting 
to ¥=1,485. 

We recommend that this amount be paid as rent ; no damages ; total, 
¥=1,485. 

(Exhibits 459, 460.) 
No. 217. Abucay, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ¥=2,874. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥=1,170 ; damages, ¥=200 ; total, ¥=1,370. 
(Exhibits 461, 462.) 
No. 218., Pilar, Bataan. Claim for damages, amounting to ¥=154. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the church buildings were not 
occupied by American troops. 
(Exhibits 463, 464.) 
No. 219. Barasoain, Bulacan. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ¥=10,800. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-five months, at ¥=150 per month, 
¥=5,250; damages, ¥=400; total, ¥=5,650. 
(Exhibits 465-468.) 
No. 220. Balanga, Bataan. Claim, rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=3,083. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ¥=100 per month, 
¥=1,800 ; damages, ¥=300 ; total, ¥=2,100. 
(Exhibits 469, 470.) 
No. 221. Dinalupijan, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ¥^3,163. 

We recommend payment of rent, seventeen months, at ¥=45 per month, 
¥=765 ; damages, ¥=500 ; total, ¥=1,065. 
(Exhibits 471, 472.) 
No. 222. Orane, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=6,944. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-two months, at ¥=75 per month, 
¥=1,650 ; no damages ; total, ¥=1,650. 
(Exhibits 473, 474.) 
No. 223. San Juan de Guinba, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to 
church and convent, amounting to ¥=3,850. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five months, at ¥=35 per month, 
¥=875 ; damages, ¥=140 ; total, ¥1,015. 
(Exhibits 475, 476.) 
No. 224. Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ¥=5,065. 

We recommend payment of rent, sixteen months, at ¥=70 per month, 
¥=1,120; damages, ¥=200; total, ¥=1,320. 
(Exhibits 477, 478.) 



46 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 225. San Antouio, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?=1,800. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at 1P50 per month, ?^600; 
damages, ^400; total, ?=1,000. 
(Exhibits 479, 480.) 
No. 226. Guagua, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to '^=48,400. 

We recommend payment of rent, convent, twenty-seven months, at KOO 
per month, ^^2,700 ; church, ten months, at ?150 per month, ^^1,500 ; dam- 
ages, f=S50; total, ?=5,050. 
(Exhibits 481^8.3.) 
No. 227. Mabalacat, Pampanga. Claim for damages to church, ?3,36o. 
We recommend payment of damages, ^52S. 
(Exhibits 483, 484.) 
No. 228. Ajigeles, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church, convent, 
chapel, and grounds, ^=24,568.35. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Church, sixteen months, at 
?150 per month, 1P=2,400 ; convent, thirty-seven and one-half months, at 
f=50 per month, '^=1,875 ; damages, 1P1,450 ; total, ?5,725. 
(Exhibits 485, 486.) 
No. 229. Floridablanca, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=4,916. 

We recommend payment of rent, nineteen months, at ?=40 per month, 
?=760; damages, f=300; total, f^l,060. 
(Exhibits 487, 488.) 
No. 230. Macabebe, Pampanga. Claim for damages to church and convent de- 
stroyed by fire, ^=100,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 489, 490.) 
No. 231. San Fernando, Pampanga. Claim for damages to church and convent 
by fire, ?68,352. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 491-494.) 
No. 232. Santa Ana, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=375. 

We I'ecommend payment of rent, fourteen months, at ?15 per month, 
1^210; damages, ?=15; total, ?=225. 
(Exhibits 493r494.) 
No. 233. Arayat, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^=22,408.67. 

We recommend payment of rent, as follows : Convent, forty-seven months, 
at ^0 per month, ?=2,860 ; church, eight months, at ^10 per month. ?=80 ; 
damages, ?650; total, f=3,550. 
(Exhibits 495, 496.) 
No. 234. Porac, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ^7,744. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-one months, at P40 per month, 
?840; damages, ^550; total, f=l,390. 
(Exhibits 497, 498.) 
No. 235. Santo Tomas, Pampanga. Claim for damages to church and convent, 
destroyed by fire, 1P44,278. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 499, 500.) 
No. 236. Santa Rita, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=10,600. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at P70 per month, 
?1,260; damages, ?=442; total, 1^1,702. 
(Exhibits 501, 502.) 
No. 237. Candaba, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=2,840. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, twenty-eight 
months, at ?=60 per month, ?=1,680 ; church, nine months, at ?^0 per month, 
?540; damages, ?=200; total, f=2,420. 
(Exhibits 503, 504.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 47 

No. 238. Magalang, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to chui-cti and 
convent, amounting to ?=2,460. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, twenty months, at 
?40 per month, ^800 ; church, four months, at ?=50 per month, ?200 ; dam- 
ages, ?224 ; total, ?=1,224. 
(Exhibits 505, 506.) 
No. 239. San Simon, Pampanga. Claim for damages to church and convent, by 
fire amounting to ?=1 50,300. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibit 507.) 
No. 240. San Luis, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=13,800. 

We recommend payment of i-ent, twenty-six months, at f=100 per month, 
?=2,600; damages, ?=300; total, F2,900. 
(Exhibits 508, 509.) 
No. 241. Bacolor, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to f*=12,200. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, twenty months, at 
?65 per month, ?=1,820; church, three months, at ?=20 per month, ?60; 
damages, ?=450; total, ?=2,330. 
(Exhibits 510, 511.) 
No. 242. Mexico, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to church and, con- 
vent, amounting to ^124,700.24. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, twenty-one and 
one-half months, at ?=80 per month, ?1,720 ; church, three and one-half 
. months, at ?=10 per month, ^35; damages, ?=500; total, ?=2,255. 

(Exhibits 512,513.) 
No. 243. Sexmoan, Pampanga. Claim for damages to convent by fire, ^5,452. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as the destruction was an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibits 514, 515.) 
No. 244. Lubao, Pampanga. Cla'im for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, iimouuting to ?5,200. 

We recommend payment of rent, sixteen months, at 1P80 per month, 
^1,280; damages, f=280; total, ?=1,560. 
(Exhibits 516-518.) 
No. 245. Bolinao, Zambales. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ^1,900. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-nine months, at "F45 per month, 
?=1,305; damages, f=100: total, ?=1,405. 
(Exhibits 519, 520.) 
No. 246. Candelaria, Zambales. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=1,155.70. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, eighteen months, at 
?=25 per month, ^450; church, seven months, at PIO per month, ?=70; no 
damages ; total, ?=520. 
(Exhibits 521, 522.) 
No. 247. Santa Ana, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=11,407. 

We recommend payment of rent, seven months, at ?=125 per month, 
?=875; damages, F500; total, f=l,375. 
(Exhibits 523.) 
No. 248. Pateros, Rizal. Claim for damages to church and convent by fire, ^nd 
effects of same, amounting to ?=76,670. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, the destruction being an incident 
of war. 

(Exhibit 524.) 
No. 249. Hermosa, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ?^1,998.* 

We recommend payment of rent, seventeen months, at ?35 per month, 
?=595; damages, ?=200; total, ?=795. 
(Exhibits 525, 526.) 
No. 250. Orion, Bataan. Claim for rental and damages to church, convent, and 
cemetery, amounting to ?=5,325.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ?120 per month, 
?2,160; damages, ?=200; total ?=2,360. 
(Exhibits 527, 528.) 

25765—08 4 



48 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 251. Sampaloc. Manila. Claim for rental and damages to cemetery, amount- 
ing to ?=500. 

We recommend paj^ment of rent, ?=260; no damages; total, ?=260. 
(Exhibits 529, 5.30.) 
No. 252. San Miguel, Manila. Claim for damages to cemetery, amounting to 
?=300. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, damages being an incident of war. 
(Exhibits 530, .531.) 
No. 253. Santa Cruz, iNIanila. Claim for damages to cemetery, amounting to 
?=2,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, damages being an incident of war. 
(Exhibits 532, 533.) 
No. 254. Binondo, Manila. Claim for rental and damages to chapel and ceme- 
tery, amounting to f>'l, 548.34. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=748.34 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 5.34, 535.) 
No. 255. Apalit, Pampanga. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ?=5,975. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at ?=S0 per month, 
f=2,160; damages, ?=116 ; total, P=2,276. 
(Exhibits 536, 537.) 
No. 256. Paco, Manila. Claim for damages to church, convent, and effects, 
amounting to ?=300,000 (amount of ^=554,785, as stated in Exhibit B, was 
taken from an abstract and is incorrect). 
We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits B, C, and 538, 539.) 
No. 257. Hagonoy, Bulacan. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to P8,500. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five and one-half months, at ?=S0 
per month, ?=2,040; damages, ?=1,500; total, ?=3,540. 
(Exhibits 540-542.) 
No. 258. Beaterio, Manila. Claim for rent and damages to building amounting 
to ?=4,4S0.65. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at P200 per month, 
¥=2,400: damages, ¥=500; total, f=2,900. 
(Exhibits 543-545.) 
No. 259. Ormoc, Leyte. Claim for rent of convent amounting to ?16.67. 
We recommend that this amount be paid. 
(Exhibits 546, 547.) 
No. 260. Butuan, Surfgao. Claim for damages by Are and loot of church 
amounting to f=560. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as one was act of war, the other 
wanton. 

(Exhibit 548.) 
No. 261. Tanauan, Batangas. Claim for rent and damages to church and con- 
vent amoiniting to ¥=18,973.26. 

We recommend payment of rent : Convent, forty months, at ¥=120 per 
month, ¥=4,800 ; church, four months, at ¥=70 per month, ¥=280 ; addition, 
thirty-six months, at ¥=30 per month, ¥=1,080 ; cemetery, thirty-six months, 
at ¥=10 per month, ¥=360 ; damages. ¥^,500 ; total, ¥=18.020. 
(Exhibits 549-552.) 
No. 262. Nauian, Mindoro. Claim for rent and damages to convent amounting 
to ¥=3,535. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirteen months, at ?20 per month, 
#=260; damages, ¥=240; total, ¥=500. 
(Exhibits 553, 554.) 
No. 263. Alfonso, Cavite. Claim for rent of convent amounting to ¥=250. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, as claim is one against the insular 
government. 
(Exhibit 555.) 
No. 264. Talisay, Batangas. Claim for damages to church convent, and effects 
by fire, amounting to ¥=3,534.75. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits 556, 557.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 49 

No. 265. Ca]amba, Lagiina. Claim for rent and damages to convent amounting 
to f=10,744. 

We recommend payment of rent, 45 monttis, at ?=70 per montti, ^3,150 ; 
damages, ?=400; total, ?=3,550. 
(Bxliibits 558-562.) 
No. 266. Davao, Mindanao. Claim for rent and damages to convent amounting" 
to ?=1,200. 

We recommend payment of rent, nine nronths, at ?^5 per month, ^585 ; 
damages, T75 ; total, ^660. 
(Exhibits 563-567.) 
No. 267. Catmon, Cebu. Claim for rent and damages to church amounting to 
?=1,719.55. 

We recommend payment of rent, f*=800 ; damaa-es, ?200; total, "M,00. 
(Exhibits .568, 569.) 
No. 268. Tanay, Rizal. Claim for rent and damages to church and convent 
amounting to f^l3,640. 

We recommend payment of rent, February 12, 1900, to October 12, 1905, 
sixty-eight months, at ?=75 per month, P5.100 ; damages, ?1,000 ; total, 
1^6,100. 

(Exhibits 570-574.) 

The board thereupon adjourned to meet at the call of the president, 
from day to day. 

J. W. Moore, 

First Lieutenant^ Second Cavalry. 



Headquarters Philippines Division, 

Manila, P. /., January 15, 1906; 
The board met pursuant to adjournment. 
Present: All the members. 

The board then proceeded to consider and pass upon the following 
cases : 

No. 269. Cavinti, Laguna. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to ?=850. 

We recommend payment of rent, =P420 ; damages, P50; total, P470. 

(Exhibits 575, 576.) 
No. 270. Louisiana, Laguna. Claim for rent and damages to church property,, 
amounting to P400. 

We recommeud payment of rent, P350 ; no damages. 

(Exhibits 577, 578.) 
No. 271. Pila, Laguna. Claim for rent and damages to church property, amount- 
ing to P5,940. 

We recommend pavment of rent, P1.120; damages, PlOO; total, Pl,220.. 

(Exhibits .579, 580^) 
No. 272. Mandaue, Cebu. Claim for damages, amounting to Pl,935. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 

(Exhibits 581-583.) 
No. 273. Tuburan, Cebu. Claim for rent and damages to chui'ch properts^, 
amounting to P680. 

We recommend pavment of rent, P510 ; no damages. 

(Exhibits 584, 585.) 
No. 274. Borbon, Cebu. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to ?=5,760. 

We recommend payment of rent, P250 ; no damages. 

(Exhibits 586, 587.) 
No. 275. Loreto, Dinagat Island. Claim for damages, amounting to P27,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 

(Exhibit .588.) 
No. 276. Candalaria, Tayabas. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to P899. 

We recommend pavment of rent, P300 ; damages, PlOO ; total, P400. 

(Exhibits 589, 590.) 



50 CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 277. Pagbiliio, Tayabas. Claim for rent and damages to eliiircli in'operty, 
amonnting to ?3,67.j. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?2,220; damages, ?=200; total, ?=2,420. 
(Exhibits 501, 592.) 
No. 278. Maragondon, Cavite. Claim for rent and damages to elmrcli property, 
amounting to ?=2,000. 

We recommend payment of rent, 1^800 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 593-596.)^ 
No. 279. Tayug, Pangasin'an. Claim for rent and damages to church proi)erty, 
amounting to ?^8,366.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?2,700; no damages. 
(Exhibits 597-599.) 
No. 280. Asingan, Pangasiuau. Claim for rent and damages to church prop- 
erty, amounting to ?=5,300. 
We recommend payment of rent, ?600 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 600-602.) 
No. 281. San Jacinto, Pangasinan. Claim for rent and damages to church 
property, amounting to Pll,912.75. 

We I'ecommend payment of rent, ?=1,265 ; damages ?1,300 ; total, ?=2,565. 
(Exhibits 603-605.) 
No. 282. San Ildefonso, Ilocos Sur. Claim for damages to church property,, 
amounting to ?=1,018.56. 

We recommend payment of damages, ?'500. 
(Exhibits 606, 607.) 
No. 283. San Esteban, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rent and damages to church prop- 
erty, amounting to f=978. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?=440 ; damages, ?=150 ; total. ?=590. 
(Exhibits 608, 609.) 
No. 284. Victoria, Tarlac. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to ?=3,640. 
s We recommend payment of rent, -Fl,300 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 610-613.) 
No. 285. Cuenca, Batangas. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to ?=638.25. 

We recommend the payment of rent, ?270 ; damages, 1P50 ; total, ?320. 
(Exhibits 614, 615.) 
No. 286. Batangas, Batangas. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=11, 199.35. 

We recommend payment of rent, 1P=4,725 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 616-629.) 
No. 287. Zumarraga, Samar. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=397. 

We recommend the payment of rent, ?=80 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 630-632.) 
No. 288. Manaoag, Pangasinan. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to 1P4,774. 

We recommend the payment of rent, twenty-six months, at ?75 per 

month, n,950 ; damages, ?400 ; total, ?=2,350. 
(Exhibits 6.33-640.) 
No. 289. San Manuel, Pangasinan. Claim for damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^500. 

We recommend pavment of damages ?^00. 
(Exhibits 614-645.) 
No. 290. Taal, Batangas. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ?=18,885. 

We recommend the payment of rent, old church and convent, forty-two 
months, at 1P35 per month, ?1,470 ; new church and convent, forty-two 
months, at ?90 per month, ?3,780 ; corral, forty-two months, at ?12.50 per 
month. f>=525: total for rent, ?5,775 : damages, ?850. Total, ?6,625. 
(Exhibits 646-652.) 
No. 291. Tiaong, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to TB,930. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at ?100 per month, 
?=2,400: no damages. 
(Exhibits 653-657.) 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 51 

No. 292. Ibaan, Batangas. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amonntmg to ?1,834. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-five months, at ?50 per month, 
f^l,250 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 658-662.) 
No. 293. Quingua, Bnlacan. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=3,335. 

We recommend payment of rent, church, two months, at ?=40 per month, 
?80 ; convent, thirty-four months, at ?=50 per month, ?=700 ; damages, ?300 ; 
total, ?=2,0S0. 

(Exhibits 663-665.) 
No. 294. Binalonan, Pangasinan. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?6,200. 

We recommend pavment of rent, twenty- seven months, at ?60 per month, 
P1.620; damages, f=2,100; total, ?=3,720. 
(Exhibits 666-674.) 
No. 295. Taysan, Batangas. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ?=929. 

We recommend payment of rent' ^375 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 675-677.) 
No. 296. Bambau, Tarlac. Claim for rental and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?1,385. 

We recommend pavment of rent, forty-one months, at ?25 per month, 
^1,025; damages, ?=100; total, ^3,] 25. 
(Exhibits 678-681.) 
No. 297. Pamplona, Ambos Camarines. Claim for damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ?=576. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits 682, 683.) 
No. 298. Naga, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?5,24S. 
We recommend payment of rent, ?=900 ; damages, M.60 ; total, ^1,060. 
(Exhibits 684-691.) 
No. 299. San Francisco de Malabon, Cavite. Claim for rental and damages to 
church and convent, amounting to ?'10,86S. 

We recommend payment of rent, fortj five months, at f*=1.50 per month, 
?6,750 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 692-695.) 
No. 300. Dumanjug, Cebu. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=1,840. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at ?45 per month, ?=540 ; 
no damages. 

(Exhibits 696-701.) 
No. 301. Tigaon, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rent and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?=3,553. 

We recommend payment of rent, fifteen months, at ^60 per month, 
^=900: damages, ?=700; total, ?=1,600. 
(Exhibits 702-705.) 
No. 302. Pagsanjan, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^8,911. 

We recommend payment of rent for convent, twenty-nine months, at 
?70 per month, 1P2,030 ; for church, four months, at ?50 per month, ?'200 ; 
damages, ?=450; total, ?=2,680. 
(Exhibits 706-709.) 
No, 303. Sampaloc. Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to church, amount- 
ing to ?=1,88.50. 

We recommend payment of rent, five months, at ?=20 per month, ?=100; 
damages, ?=50; total, P150. 
(Exhibits 710, 711.) 
No. 304. Pitogo, Tayabas. Claim rental for convent, amounting to .$140. 

We recommelid payment of rent, seven months, at ?=10 per month, ?=70. 
(Exhibits 712-715.) 
No. 305. Santa Maria, Laguna. Claim for rental and damage to convent, 
amounting to f^l,431. 

We recommend payment of rent, ten months, at ^30 per mouth, ?=300 ; no 
damage; total, ?=300. 
(Exhibits 716-720.) 



52 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 306. Laoag, Ilocos Norte. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^67,068.25. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty- six months, at ?=200 per month, 
?=7,200; damages, ?=400; total, P7,600. 
(Exhibits 721-725.) 
No. 307. Cavite Viejo, Cavite. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to f*=10,700. 

We recommend payment of rent for yard, nineteen months, at ^12 per 
month, ^228; no damages; total, ?=228. 
(Exhibits 726-729.) 
No. 308. Calauan, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to W,925. 

We recommend payment of rent, six months, at f*=25 per month, ^150 : 
damages, ?=200; total, ?=350. 
(Exhibits 730-734.) 
No. 309. Bacoor, Cavite. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to 1P17,600. 

We recommend payment of rent, tvpenty months, at f*K50 per month, 
?=1,200; damages, ?=1,500; total, ?=2,700. 
(Exhibits 735-742.) 
No. 310. Burauen, Leyte. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^5,025. 

We recommend payment of rent, ^100; no damages; total, ?100. 
(Exhibits 743, 744.) 
No. 311. Basey, Samar. Claim for rental and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ^17,624. 

We recommend pavment of rent, ?=2,100 ; no damages ; total, 'f=2,100. 
(Exhibits 745-752.) 
No. 312. Cagayan, Mindanao. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^"3,317. 

We recommend payment of rent, ten months, at P40 per month, ?=400; 
damages, ?=150; total, ?550. 
(Exhibits 753-755.) 
No. 313. Santiago, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rental and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to f^l,015. 

We recommend payment of rent, eight months, at ^^30 per monthi ?240*, 
damages, T15 ; total, TS16. 
(Exhibits 756-759.) 
No. 314. Lumban, Laguna. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ^3,670. 

We recommend payment of rent, seventeen months, at ?80 per month, 
1^1,360: damages, ?=300 ; total. ?^1,660. 
(Exhibits 760, 761.) 
No. 315. Tayabas, Tayabas. Claim for rental and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?2,470. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at 1P50 per month, 
1^1,200; no damages; total, ?=1,200. 
(Exhibits 762-764.) 
No. 316. Mai'ipipi, Leyte. Claim for destruction of church and convent by fire; 
no estimate of value. 

We recommend nothing to be paid, the destruction beiftg an incident of 
warfare. 

(Exhibit 765.) 
No. 317. San Juan del Monte, Rizal. Claim for rental and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?=14,545. 

We recommend pavment of rent, twenty-four months, at P50 per month, 
f^l,200 : no damages.' Total, ?=1,200. 
(Exhibits 766-770.) 
No. 318. Jassan, Mindanao.. Claim rent in sum of ^150. 

We recommend payment of rent, four months, at ?30 per month, 1P120. 
(Exhibits, 771, 772.) 
No. 319. Sand Leonardo, Nue\a Ecija. Claim for rental and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?1,320. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?1,000: no damages. 
(Exhibits 773, 774.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHsTE ISLANDS. 53 

No. 320. Torrijos, Marinduque. Claim for rental and damages to cliurch and 
convent, amounting to f^695. 

We recommend payment of rent for church, T40 ; for convent, ?=150 ; dam- 
ages, ?=50; total, ?=240. 
(Exhibits 775, 776.) 
No. 321. Paracale, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to church 
and convent, amounting to ?=1,900. 

We recommend paj^ment of rent, twenty months, at ?25 per month, ?=500 ; 
damages, ?=100; total, F600. 
(Exhibits 777-779.) 
No. 322. Malitbog, Leyte, Matalom, Leyte. Claim for ?=4,157.03, money of 
church seized by the Insurgent Lukban in 1899. 
We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits (B and C, 780-782.) 
No. 323. Dapitan, Mindanao. Claim damages to convent, amounting to ?=514. 
We recommend payment of ?=50 as damages ; no rent. 
(Exhibits 783-785.) 
No. 324.. Alabat, Tayabas. Claim for rental of convent, 1P101.46. 
We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits 786-788.) 
No. 325. Pandan, Albay. Claim for rental of convent, amounting to ?'877. 
We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibit 789.) 
No. 326. Minalabag, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rental and damages to con- 
vent, amounting to ?=765. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibit 790.) 
No. 327. Angadanan, Isabela. Claim for damages to church and convent, 
amounting to '?620. 

"We recommend payment of damages ?=250 ; no rent. 
(Exhibits 791-795.) 
No. 328. Bagabag, Nueva Vizcaya. Claim for rent of convent, twenty-four and 
one-half months, at ^150 per month, ?=3,675. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four and one-half months, at 
?75 per month, f=l ,837.50; no damages. 
(Exhibits 796-SOO.) 
No. 329. Dupax, Nueva Vizcaya. Claim for rent of convent, thirteen months, 
at ?150 per month, ?=1,950. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirteen months, at ?=65 per month, 
?=845 ; no damages. • 

(Exhibits 800-S02.) 
No. 330. Solano, Nueva Vizcaya. Claim for rent of convent, twenty-four and 
one-half mouths, at 9^50 per month, ^1,225. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at ^25 per month, 
1P600. 

( Exhibits 800, 803, 804. ) 
No. 331. Rosales, Nueva Ecija. Claim for rent and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?92,900. 

We recommend payment of rent, sixteen months, at 1P100 per month, 
?1,600 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 805-807.) 
No. 332. Santa Maria, Isabela. Claim for rent and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=1,976. 

We recommend payment of rent, fifteen months, at ?33.33-J per month, 
?500; damages, f=160; total, 1P=660. 
(Exhibits 808-812.) 
No. 333. Calabanga, Ambos, Camarines. Claim for damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^1,915. 

We recommend payment as damages, "^=750 ; no rent. 
(Exhibits 813-815.) • 

No. 334. Libmanan, Ambos Camarines. Claim for damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ?=5,580. 
We recommend that nothing be paid. (See case 44.) 
(Exhibits 816, 817.) 
No. 335. Maynit, Mindanao. Claim rent and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ?=674. 
We recommend payment of rent ; ?^0 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 818-820.) 



54 CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

o 

No. 336. Sau Qneutiu, Pangasfnan. Claim rent for convent, amounting to 
?=4,800. 

We recommend paj^ment of rent, twenty-four months, at P55 per month, 
?=1,320 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 821, 822.) 
No. 337. Pasacao, Ambos Camarines. Claim rent and damages to church and 
conA'ent, amounting to ?=1,610. 

We recommend payment of rent, ten months, at ?=30 per month, 1^=300; 
damages, ^SQO; total, ^600. 
(Exhibits 823, 824.) 
No. 338. Gumaca, Tayabas. Claim rent and damages to convent, amounting to 
9=6,428. 

We recommend payment of rent, twelve months, at ?=35 per month, f*=420 ; 
damages, ?25 ; total, ?445. 
(Exhibits 82.5-827.) 
No. 339. Pilar, Abra. Damages to church and convent, amounting to ^,697. 
We recommend nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits 828, 829.) 
No. 340. San Jose, Abra. Claim for rent and damages to church, amounting to 
?=700. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?20 ; damages, ?=80 ; total, WOO. 
(Exhibits 830-8.33.) 
No. 341. Ville Vieja, Abra. Claim for rent and damages to church and con- 
vent, amounting to ?=3,090. 

We recommend payment of rent, f*^5.50 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 834-841.) 
No. 342. Nneva Caceres, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rent and damages to 
Episcopal palace, seminary, corral, San Felipe, cemetery, etc., amounting 
to ^46,059.07. 

We recommend payment as follows : Rent, palace, thirty-seven months, 
at ?=400, ?=14,800 ; damages, palace, ?=640; rent, cemetery, ?664; rent, semi- 
nary, twenty-six months, at ?=220, ?5,720; rent, corral, forty-five months, 
at P35, =P=1 ,575 ; rent, San Felipe, sixteen months, at M.6, ?=25G ; damages, 
seminary, corral, etc., ?565 ; total, 1^24,220. 
(Exhibits 842-877.) 
No. 343. San Mateo, Rizal. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amounting 
to ?=11,279. 

We recommend payment of rent, fifty-four months, at ?60 per month, 
?=3,240; damages, ?=l60; total, ?=3,340. 
« (Exhibits 878-^1.) 

No. 344 Montalban, Rizal. Claim for i-ent and damages to church, amoimting 
to f=655. 

We recommend payment of rent, six months, at ?50 per month, ?500; 
no damages. 
(Exhibit 882.) 
No. 345 Mariquina, Rizal. Claim damages to church and convent, amounting 
to ^^71,193.50. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibit 883.) 
No. 346. Indang, Cavite. Claim for rent of convent, amounting to ?=5,220. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty and one-hal:^ months, at ?50 per 
month, ?=1,525 (?^50 properly a claim against the insular government). 
(Exhibits 884-886.) 
No. 347. Lilio, Laguna. Claim for damages to church and convent, amounting 
to f^5,413.40. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. 

(Note. — We recommend that the statement against Captain Stamper be 
investigated. ) 
(Exhibit 887.) 
No. 848. Longos, Las^na. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amounting 
to ^650. 

We recommend payment of rent, six months, at ?20 per month, ?=120; 
no damages. 

(Exhibits 888-889.) 



CATHOLIC CHUEOH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 55 

No. 349. Majayjay, Laguna. Claim for rent and damages to cliurcli and con- 
vent, amonnting to ?11,.349.14. 

We recommend payment as follows : Rent, convent, thirty months, at f=80, 
?=2,400 ; rent, church, six months, "at f=40, ?=240 ; rent, school, eighteen 
months, at ?=25, ?=450 ; damages, ?=250 ; total, f=3,340. 
. (Exhibits 890-894.) 
No. 350. Yigan, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rent and damage to palace, seminary, 
girls' school, and corral, amounting to ?^7,500.80. 

We recommend payment as follows : Palace, rent, twenty months, at ?=175 
per month, 1P3,500 ; palace, damages, 1P1,200 ; seminary, rent, thirty-seven 
months, at ?=200 per month, ?=7,400; seminary (no damages) ; girls' school, 
rent, thirty-seven months, at ?=175, ?=6,475; girls' school, damages, ^=1,200; 
corral, rent of grounds, thirty-seven months, at ^30, ?=1,110 ; total, ^=20,885. 
(Exhibits 895-951.) 
No. 351. Goa, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rent a>nd damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ^=6,526.90. 

We recommend payment of rent, eighteen months, at ¥=100 per month, 
1P1,800; damages, -?2,200; total, ?=4,000. 
(Exhibits 952-955.) 
No. 352. Tagoloan, Misamis, and Santa Ana, Misamis. Claim for rent, church 
and convent, ¥=488.29. 

We recommend payment of rent, ?400. 
(Exhibit 956.) 
No. 353. Ligao, Albay. Claim for rent and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=5,940. 

We recommend payment as follows : Church, rent, three months, at ¥=30 
per month, ¥=90 ; convent, rent, nineteen months, at ¥"125 per month, ¥=2,375 ; 
damages, ¥=1,000; total, ¥=3,465. 
(Exhibits 957-959.) 
No. 354. Catabalogan, Samar. Claim for rent, amounting to ¥=600. 

We recommend payment of rent, three months, at ¥100 per month, ¥=300 ; 
total, ¥=300. 

(Exhibits 960-962.) 
No. 355. Calbiga, Samar. Claim rent and damages to church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=8,450. 

We recommend payment of rent, ten months, at ¥=80 per month, ¥=800 ; no 
damages. 

(Exhibit 963.) 
No. 356. Alorae, Misamis. Claim for rent and damages to church property, 
amounting to ¥=920. 

We recommend payment of rent, eight months, at ¥=40 per month, ¥=320; 
damages, ¥=200 ; total, ¥=520. 
(Exhibits 964-965.) 
No. 357. Magaldau, Pangasinan. Claim for rent and damages to church and 
convent, amounting to ¥=2,665. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirty-one and one-half months, at ¥=25 
per month, ¥=787.50 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 966-971.) 
No. 358. Concepcion, Tarlac. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amount- 
ing to ¥=3,986. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-six months, at =¥60 per month, 
¥=1,460 damages, ¥=150; total, ¥=1,610. 
(Exhibits 972-974.) 
No. 359. San Nicolas, Pangasinan. Claim for rent and damages to church, 
amounting to ¥=630. 

We recommend payment of rent, one month, at ¥=50; no damages. 
(Exhibits 975-978.) 
No. 360. Hilongos, Leyte. Claim for rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=205,050. 

We recommend payment of rent, seven months, at ¥=100 per month, ¥=700 ; 
no damages. (Even if substantiated and act of war; but American troops 
left January 19, 1901.) 
(Exhibit 979.) 
No. 361. Tuguegarac, Cagayan. Claim for rent and damages, convent, house, and 
storehouse, amounting to ¥=8,470. 

We recommend payment of rent as follows : Convent, thirty -three months, 
at ¥=110 per month, ¥=3,630; house, twenty-five months, at ¥=50 per month. 



56 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

?=1,250 ; storehouse, twenty-six montlis, at ?5 per mouth, P130 ; total, 
?5,010 ; mo damages. 
(Exhibits 980-986.) 
No. 362. Tubugan, Iloilo. Claim for damages by looting church and convent, 
amounting to ?32,344. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, for even if claim was substantiated 
it was the unlawful acts of the service. 
(Exhibits 987-992.) 
No. 363. Calinog, Iloilo. Claim for damages to church and convent, amounting 
to fl»,720. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated, it would be 
an act of war. 

(Exhibits 993-997.) 
No. 364. Lambunac, Iloilo. Claim for damages to church and convent, amount- 
ing to ^=11,053.41. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated, it would be 
an act of war. 

(Exhibits 998-1001.) 
No. 365. Pototan, Iloilo. Claim for rent and damages to convent, amounting to 
f=l,750. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-nine months, at P50 per month, 
?=1,450 ; damages, ?=150 ; total, ?=1,600. 
(Exhibits 1002-1005.) 
No. 366. Bacolod, Negros. Claim for rent and damages, church and con^-ent, 
amounting to f=17,039.94. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-three months, at ?=200 per month, 
f=S,600; damages, ?=500; total, ?9,100. 
(Exhibits 1006-1013.) 
No. 367. Tanjay, Negros. Claim for rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to f*=560. 

We recommend payment of rent, seven months, at ?50 per month, ?350 ; 
no damages. 

(Exhibits 1014-1018.) 
No. 368. Bugasong, Antique. Claim for rent, church and convent, amounting to 
f=3,300. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-two months, at ^60 per month, 
?=1,320; no damages. 
(Exhibits 1019-1022.) 
No. 369. Maasiu, Iloilo. Claim for rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to f"2,060. 

We recommend payment of rent, thirteen months, at ?=50 per month, 
?=650 ; damages, ?=250 ; total, ^00. 
(Exhibits 102.3-1031.) 
No. 370. Cabatuan, Iloilo. Claim for rent and damages, churcli and convent, 
amounting to ?4,450. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-four months, at ?75 per month, 
1^1,800 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 1032-1037.) 
No. 371. Mandurriao, Iloilo. Claim for damages churcli effects, amounting to 
f=405. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated, it would be 
a case of looting. 

(Exhibits 1038-1042.) 
No. 372. Alimodian, Iloilo. Claim damages to church property, amounting to 
?=267. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated, it would be 
a case of looting. 

(Exhibits 1043-1046.) 
No. 373. Duenas, Iloilo. Claim for damages to convent and effects by fire, 
amounting to f*=5,615. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated, it would be 
an act of war. 

(Exhibits 1047-1050.) 
No. 374. La Castellana, Negros. Claim for rent and damages to convent 
amounting to f=5,875. 

We recommend payment of rent three months, f25 per month, ?=75; no 
damages. 

(Exhibits 1051-1056.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTE ISLANDS. 57 

No. 375. Miu-cia, Negros. Claim for rent and damages to clinrcli property, 
amounting to f*'854.75. 

We recommend payment of rent six months, at ^20 per montli, ?=120; 
no damages. 

(Exhibits 1057-1064.) 
No. 376. Isabella. Negros. Claim for rent and damages to priest bonse and 
convent, amounting to ?=3,027.25. 

We recommend payment for rent of priest bouse tbirty-four months, at 
?20 per month, ?=680 ; rent of con^•ent seven months, at ¥=20 per month, 
^140 ; total rent, ?=820 ; no damages. ' 
(Exhibits 1065-1072.) 
No. 377. Jinigaran, Negros. Binalbagan, Negros. Claim for rent and damages 
to convent, amounting to ?=1,250. 

We recommend payment of rent twelve months, at f*=40 per month, ?'480 ; 
damages, ?^250 ; total. P^730. 
(Exhibits 1073-1079.) 
No. 378. Passi, Iloilo. Claim for damages to church and convent, amounting 
to f=695. 

We recommend nothing be paid, even if substantiated. It was the result 
of the looting. 

(Exhibits 1080-1082.) 
No. 379. Jaro, Iloilo. Claim for rent and damage to seminary, palace, hospital, 
convent, and cathedral, amounting to ^117,899. 

We recommend following : Rent of seminary thirty-four months, at ?=600, 
1P20,400 ; damages to seminary, ?^2,840 : rent of palace thirty-six months, at 
?=100, ?3,600 ; damages to palace, ?1,100 ; rent of hospital seven months, 
at P^lOO, ?=700 ; damages to hospital ; convent rent for ten months, at ?100, 
?=1,000; damages to convent, ?=.500; total, ¥=30,140. 
(Exhibits 1083-1109.) 
No. 380. Lingayad, Pangasinan. Claim for rent and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?9,874.26. 

We recommend paAanent of rent thirtv-six months, at ¥=125 per month, 
¥=4,500; damages, ¥=500: total, ¥=5,000. 

(Exhibits 1110-1112.) . - 

No. 381. Umingan, Pangasi^ian. Claim for rent of church and convent, amount- 
ing to ¥=5,600. 

We recommend payment of rent fourteen months, at ¥=100 per month, 
¥=1,400. 

(Exhibits 1113, 1114.) 
No. 382. Dagami, Pastrana, Tabontabon, Leyte. Claim for damages and rent, 
amounting to ¥=8,049. 

We recommend payment of rent for fifteen months, at ¥=150, ¥=2,275 ; no 
damages. 
< (Exhibits 1115-1118.) 
No. 383. Loay, Bohol. Claim for rent and damage, church and convent, 
amounting to ¥=13,330. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥=330 ; no damages. 
(Exhibits 1119-1121.) 
No. 384. Johonga, Surigao. Claim for rent and damages for church and con- 
vent, amounting to ¥=3,744. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥^10 ; no damages. 
(Exhibit 1122.) 
No. 385. Tarangnan, Sadiar. Kent and damages, church and convent, amount- 
ing to ¥=105.50. 

We recommend this be paid. 
(Exhibits 1123, 1124.) 
No. 386. Tabogan, Cebu. Rent and damages, church and convent, amounting to 
¥=3,286. 

We recommend payment of rent, ¥=280; no damages. 
(Exhibits 112.5,1126.) 
No. 387. Catanuan, Tayabas. Claims damages, church property, amounting to 
¥=500. 

We recommend damages, ¥=350. 
(Exhibit 1127.) 
No. 388. Palapag, Samar. Claims damages to church, amounting to ¥=2,000. 

We recommend that nothing be paid; troops occupied municipal build- 
ings only. 

(Exhibit 1128.) 



58 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

No. 389. Oquenclo, Samar. Claims damages to church and cou\eiit, amounting 
to P13,842. 

We recommend damages, 1^3,000. 
(Exhibit 1129.) 
No. 390. Albay, Albay. Claims rent and damages, convent, amounting to f=6,408. 
We recommend payment of rent five months, at KL50 per month, ?750 ; 
no damages. 

(Exhibits 1130-1132.) 
No. 391. Mauban, Tayabas. Claims rent and damages to convent, amounting 
to ?=2,150. 

We recommend payment of rent, twenty-seven months, at f=40 per month, 
^1,080 ; damages, ^400 ; total, ?1,4S0. 
(Exhibits 1133-1135.) 
No. 392. Segod, Cebu. Damages to church and property by fire, amounting to 
^=30,643.38. 

We recommend that nothing be paid; act of war. 
(Exhibits 1136-1139.) 
No. 393. San Jose, Ambos Camarines. Claim for rent, church property, 
amounting to f*=l,800. 

We recommend payment of rent for eighteen months, at K.00 per month ; 
total, ?=1,800. 

(Exhibits 1140, 1141.) 
No. 394. Lagonoy, Ambos Camarines. Claim rent and damages to convent, 
amounting to ?=2,212. 

We recommend payment of rent for fourteen months, at ?50 per month, 
?700 ; damages, ?=250 ; total, ^50. 
(Exhibits 1142-1145.) 
No. 395. Janiuay, Iloilo. Claim rent, convent, amounting to ?=1,000. 
We recommend that this be paid. 
(Exhibits 1146-1148.) 
No. 396. Jimamailan, Negros. Claim rent, convent, amounting to ^60. 
We Tecommend that this be paid. 
(Exhibits 1148-1149.) 
No. 397. Cadiz, Negros. Claim rent, convent, amounting to ?=1,680. 

AVe recommend payment of rent, sixteen months, at ?=50 per month, f'SOO, 
(Exhibits 1150, 1151.) 
No. 298. Manapla, Negros. Claim rent of convent, amounting to iPl,920. 

We recommend payment of rent twentj'-four months, at ?50 per month, 
?=1,200. , 

(Exhibits 1151-1153. 
No. 399. Saravia, Negros. Claim for rent of convent, amounting to 1^1,800. 

We recommend payment of rent, fourteen months, at ?40 per month, ^-SBO. 
(Exhibits 1154-1151.) 

The board then proceeded to consider the letters and papers sub- 
mitted by Bishop Dougherty referring to case No. 85, Magsingal, 
Ilocos Sur; case No, 101, Mamacpacan, Union; and case No. 110, 
Dolores, Abra. After full consideration, the board adheres to its 
former findings and recommendations. 

(Exhibits 1155-1165.) 
No. 400. Bacon, Sorsogon. Claim rent of church, amounting to ?=360. 
We recommend that nothing be paid. 
(Exhibits 1166, 1167.) 
No. 401. Daraga, Albay. Claim rent and damages, church and convent, amount- 
ing to ?=86,858. 

We recommend payment for rent of church for fourteen months, at ?70 
per month; no rent for convent: no damages: total, ?=9S0. 
(Exhibits 1167, 1168.) 
No. 402. Capalonga, Sorsogon. Claim damage to church property, amounting 
to ?=5,450. 

We recommend that nothing be paid. Even if substantiated it would be a 
case of looting. 
(Exhibit 1167.) 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 



59 



No. 403. Jiaboiig, Samar. Claim rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ?=12,261. 

We recommend payment of rent, sixteen months, at ^^20 per month, ?=320; 
damages, ?=1,000; total, M.,320. 
(Exhibits 1169-1171.) 
No. 404. Indau, Ambos Camarines. Claim rent and damage to church property, 
amounting to ?=5,353. 

We recommend that notliing be pnid. Building not occupied. 
(Exhibits 1172-1176.) 
No. 405. Santa Cruz, Cavite. Claim rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to ^"6,275. 

We recommend payment of rent, forty-three months, at f"60 per month, 
?2,580; damages, 1*600; total, ?=3,1S0. 
(Exhibits 1177-1179.) 
No. 406. Rosario, Cavite. Claim rent and damages, chruch and convent, amount- 
ing to ?=7,350. 

We recommend payment of rent, fourteen months, at ^20 per month, 
?280; damages, ?1,050 ; total, ?1,830. 
(Exhibits 1180-1182.) 
No. 407. Nagcarlan, Laguna. Claim for rent and damages, church and convent, 
amounting to f*^,148. 

We recommend payment of rent for twenty months, at P75 per month, 
?1,500 ; damages, ?=500 ; total, !^2,000. 
(Exhibit 11S3.) 

Recapitulation. 

Amount claimed , T4, 885, 926. 26 

Amount recommended : 

Rent ?=579, 598. 87 

Damages 110, 093. 50 

Total 689, 692. 37 

Per cent, 14.11. 

Additional allowances, per Exhibit D : 

Rent 34, 158. 00 

Damages 2, 210. 00 

Total 36, 368. 00 

Aggregate allowance, Philippine currency 726, 060. 37 

Aggregate allowance. United States currency $363, 030. 19 

The following cases are included in this report in accordance with the instruc- 
tions of the division commander, dated September 28, 1905 (Exhibit D) : 





City. 


Province. 


Rent. 


Damages. 


Total. 


No. 408. 


Silay 


Negros 


n,940 
102 
180 
720 
600 
112 
525 
630 
150 
520 
520 

1,200 
180 

1,600 
755 
80 
570 
600 
480 
810 
960 

1,440 
880 
60 
180 
400 




¥■ 1,940 


No. 409 




Lepanto-Bontoc ;. 




102 


No. 410. 


Carrangian 




P50 


230 


No. 411 


do 


720 


No. 412 


Dasol 


Zambales 




600 


No. 413 




Lepanto-Bontoc 




112 


No. 414. 


Agno 


Zfl.Tnhfl.les 




525 


No. 415 




do 




630 


No. 416 


Antipolo 


Rizal 




150 


No. 417 




Cebu 




620 


No. 418 


Danao 


do 




620 


No. 419... 


Botolan 


Zambales 




1,200 


No. 420 




Cebu 




180 


No. 421... 


San Juan 


Batangas 




1,600 


No. 422 




Tayabas 




755 


No. 423... . 


Balingao 


Misamis 




80 


No. 424 








570 


No. 425 


Iba... 


Zambales . 




600 


No. 426 




Iloilo 




480 


No. 427... . 


Mutinlupa . . 


Rizal 


150 
150 


960 


No. 428 






1,110 


No. 429 


San Felipe . 


.do.. . 


1,440 


No. 430 




....do 




880 


No. 431... 


San Antonio. . 


.do 




60 


No. 432 








180 


No. 433 


Suble 


Zambales 




400 



60 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 





City. 


Province. 


Rent. 


Damages. 


Total. 


No. 434 


Sevilla 


Ilocos Sur 


P84 
460 

1,200 
625 
40 
360 
950 
60 
150 
165 

1,200 
150 

1,320 
570 
70 
840 
190 
100 
660 
550 
560 
440 
220 
440 
480 
240 
400 
750 




f*84 


No. 435. 


Palauig . 


Zambales . 




460 


No. 436 


Mangarin. 

Pantabangan 

Pinamalayan . 


Mindoro ... 


r400 


1,600 


No. 437 


Nueva Ecija 

Mindoro 


625 


No. 438. 




40 


No. 439 


Parang 

Tigbauan 




60 


420 


No. 440 


Iloilo 

Laguna 

Misamis 

Mindoro 

Misamis 

Culion 

Leyte 

Romblon 

Samar 

Zambales 

Negros 

Capiz 

Negros 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Iloilo 

Negros 

Capiz 

Negros 

Misamis 

Iloilo 

Manila 

Infanta 

Rizal 

Benguet 


..! 950 


No. 441 . ... 


Santa Cruz 

Loculan 

Paluan 

Jimenez 

Culion 

Jaro 

Romblon 

Guiuan 

Cabangan 

Gulmbaloan 

Malinao 

Cavanoalan 

Sagay 

Bais 

La Carlota 

Bayauan 

Guimbal 

Guijulugan 

Ibajay 

Calatrava 

Oroquieta 

Leon 

Santa Rosa 

Binangonan 

La Loma 

La Trmidad 


. . . . ' 60 


No. 442 


1 150 


No. 443 


.! Ifi.T 


No. 444 

No. 445 

No. 446 




1,200 

150 

1,320 


No. 447 

No. 448 




570 
70 


No. 449 




840 


No. 450 

No. 451 




190 
inn 


No. 452 


: 660 


No. 453 ... 


550 


No. 454 ... 


hm 


No. 455 




440 
220 
440 
480 
240 
400 


No. 456 




No. 457 




No. 458 ... 




No. 459 




No. 460 


No. 461 




750 


No. 462 


1,600 

2,000 

120 

920 

50 




1,600 


No. 463 


1,000 


3,000 
120 


No. 464 


No. 465 


400 


1,320 


No. 466 


»50 








Total 


34,158 i 2.210 


36, 368 















(Exhibits 1184-1258.) 

Presenting- this report of investigation and recommendation, the 
board submits therewith the following statement for the consider- 
ation of the reviewing authority : 

In the examination of all claims ]Dresented by the church for occu- 
pation and use of church property by United States troops, and 
damages incident fliereto and consequent upon said occupation, the 
board has been actuated by a desire to be fair and equitable in 
every instance; and fully believes its estimate of amount due from 
the IJnited States to the Roman Catholic Church in the PhiliiDpines 
for rental and damages to be just or as nearly so as it is possible to 
make a settlement at this late date. 

The claims of the church have been submitted in Spanish, the 
language best understood in the country. Translation of these claims 
have not been made and transmitted with this report for various 
reasons, among which may be mentioned absence of proper interpre- 
ters at command of board, consideration of time required to make 
such translation, and lack of necessity, as statement of total of claim 
is made in English in report of board. 

The location of church property on which claim has been made for 
rental and damage is so widely distributed throughout the archipel- 
ago, and in some instances so inaccessible, that it has been deemed a 
matter of impossibility that a visit be made to each locality by-the 
board as a body, or by the members separately, and therefore the 
necessity has arisen of making investigation and basing recommenda- 
tion on examination of claim of church, reports of officers sent to 
investigate and report upon property, and such other pertinent in- 
formation as could be obtained from records of various offices and 
other sources. 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 61 

In due consideration of the claims presented hj the church, the 
board has caused records to be searched for data, and have gathered 
information, in all wsijs available, until they have felt that enough 
was at hand on which to render a fair and just report. Before the 
convening of this board officers of the Army had been detailed to 
inspect the buildings occupied by United States troops in the various 
provinces and to make report upon, with estimate of value of rental 
and damages as the result of such occupation. 

These reports have been submitted to the board and have been 
fully considered by them in basing their estimates. 

In a number of cases, considering the size of the buildings, etc., it 
has been apparent that the officers making the reports have not 
reported on adequate rental, and in such cases the board has not hesi- 
tated to place the rental at what was deemed a reasonable amount. 
In all other cases, however, the board has felt that the officers on the 
ground, with full knowledge of all the conditions, were better able to 
judge than the members of the board on ex parte evidence. 

To have secured direct testimonj^ subject to personal examination 
on all disputed questions of fact would have delayed this report 
indefinitely. 

For a proper consideration of these claims a knowledge of past 
conditions in the islands is essential. 

The insurrection of 1896 and the following years, we are told by 
contemporary writers, was aimed at both the church and state, they 
being under the Spanish Government virtually one and the same, 
the animus being directed chiefly against the friars, who had fortress- 
like buildings and who occupied and cultivated by native labor large 
tracts of land, and who were therefore exceedingly prosperous, and, 
perhaps, by reason of this prosperity the more open to attack by agi- 
tators. During the progress of this insurrection in the provinces 
affected the churches and conventos were occupied alternately by 
insurgents and Spanish, and there was no doubt much destruction of 
church property or the property of the orders in the attack and 
defense of these outposts of the church. Writings of the time record 
many cases of bombardment of these places, burnings, lootings, and 
the use of materials of buildings as entrenchments and other means 
of defense. 

No sufficient time elapsed between the end of the insurrection of 
1896, as continued, and the insurrection against the Spanish Govern- 
ment in the summer of 1898 to allow of repair of damage already 
done or the reconstruction and rehabilitation of many of the parish 
churches and conventos destroyed or injured during the former insur- 
rection. Between the termination of the first and the outbreak of the 
second insurrection the country was evidently overrun by ladrones 
and pulajanes — robbers and outlaws — who held the inhabitants in 
terror. The insurrection of 1896 extended in its scope to nearly all 
the islands of the archipelago, and was particularly virulent during 
the latter part in the Visayas and in parts of Mindanao. These same 
conditions were present during the insurrection of 1898 and the 
following year — the same destruction of church property and the 
property of the orders by the insurgent forces in the use of same as 
places of rally and defense, the same use of material for construction 
of outworks, and the same lootings and burnings on forced evacuation. 



62 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Similar damage, only to perhaps a greater extent, incident to the 
use of heavier guns by the Americans, followed from bombardment of 
such places, in some instances resulting in fire, with the consequent 
total or partial loss of the buildings. 

It is to be regretted that these cases were not finally adjusted sev- 
eral years ago wdiile the questions presented were fresh. Among the 
many causes that have contributed to the delay in settlement may be 
mentioned the disturbed condition of the country immediately fol- 
lowing the collapse of the insurrection, the delay of the church in 
formulating and presenting their claims (the claims were received 
here in July, 1905) , and the prevalent belief that the claims for rental 
and damages to church property would be considered and some adjust- 
ment made at the time the friar land questions were determined. 

The officials of the Catholic Church state that they have experienced 
difficulty in securing statements and presenting claims for occupation 
and damage to their property in certain sections, the records of the 
church and church property being in the control of the Agilpayans, 
a hostile offshoot of the church, or in the hands of a hostile munici- 
pality. This difficulty has also been due to a certain extent to the 
severance of church and state and the consequent reduction of church 
revenue. War, pestilence, and famine have also had a serious effect 
in reducing church income. 

Tn some towns, even after due diligence, it has been impossible for 
the church authorities to submit proper claims, and as money is 
equitably due from the United States for occupation by the United 
States forces, the board has, in accordance with the instructions of the 
division commander, included in its report all towns for which no 
claims were presented, yet which were shown by official reports to 
have been occupied. 

This report, therefore, disposes of all church claims except those of 
certain religious orders who have filed with this board, through their 
attorneys, claims fbr rent and damages amounting to $796,469.09 
United States currency. Eeport on these cases will be rendered as 
soon as possible. 

Many of the churches and conventos on these islands were built 
over a century ago, and while it is to be supposed that ordinary care 
has been taken in preservation of same, nevertheless it is a well- 
known fact that much deterioration must have taken place in the 
material of which the buildings are composed by the action of the 
elements and from the ravages of insects. Buildings deteriorate 
rapidly in such a climate as that prevalent here, and it is doubtful if 
much care was exercised or many if any repairs made during the 
period of insurrection in the islands, and as a result of such lack of 
care and repair small damages would increase in scope in a rapid 
manner. Times of war are serious within the zone of operations, for 
the noncombatants as well as for those engaged in actual hostilities, 
and in view of the disturbed conditions in most instances, occupation 
of church property in various parts of the Philippines has inured to 
the benefit of the church by prevention of spoliation by those in insur- 
rection and other evil-minded persons and in many instances the 
occupancy has been a positive benefit rather than a detriment to their 
interests. 

One of the hardest questions for the board to determine was the 
manner in which the amount to be paid for the occupation was to be 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 63 

ascertained. From the very nature of the buildmgs, and from the 
fact that they were the only buildings in the towns of substantial 
construction, it was impossible to get any proper guide from com- 
mercial rates; and for the same reason it was virtually impossible 
to get any proper estimate of the value of the buildings and then to 
figure by percentages from that as to what would be a fair rental. 

The damages resulting from prevention of religious services, on 
account of occupation of the church by United States forces, would 
be purely speculative, especially so when it is considered that in 
almost every instance where insurgents were in the vicinity or had 
been driven from the town by the United States troops, the priests 
either abandoned their charges and went voluntarily into the hills 
with the insurgents, or were taken by them by force and held as 
prisoners. The amount of interference with the conduct of religious 
services was very slight. 

It was also suggested that we take a monthly rate as to the number 
of troops that occupied the buildings. In some cases, however, a 
very few troops occupied a very large building, while in other cases 
a number of troops were crowded into one of inferior construction, 
according to the demands of military necessity. In some instances 
the priest in charge of the parish lived in the convent with the troops, 
while in other cases the convent was completely occupied, and he was 
compelled to rent other quarters in the town for his living apart- 
ments. 

After much discussion and reflection neither the rule of " quantum 
meruit " nor that of the damages inflicted to claimants was adopted, 
but all possible elements were taken into consideration by the board, 
so far as it was in its power to do so, in arriving at what they deemed 
to have been a fair and just rental for the occupation of the buildings. 

It is a well known fact that when American forces entered a town 
they usually ■ found that everything of value had been taken away 
from the churches and convents. In many of the towns church 
property had beeiL completely sacked by the insurgents and criminal 
inhabitants, and in the other cases where the communities were still 
religious various persons carried off all movable property of value 
from the different churches and convents to their homes or in some 
other way concealed the same from the Americans. 

It is also a well-established fact that during the early years of 
American occupation many native priests were aiders and abettors of 
the insurrection, and it may be possible that in some instances that 
fact may have influenced Americans who were called upon for reports 
upon questions of damages to and rentals of churches in a manner 
detrimental to the proper interests of the church. 

On the other hand, a priest that a few years ago was hostile, 
especially one who had been punished by the Americans for his action, 
is apt not to be conservative in his estimate of the damage done to his 
parish. 

The present heads of the church here, without full personal knowl- 
edge, have had to depend upon the recollection and judgment of 
natives in their estimates. 

It is evidenced in many cases, as presented, that the estimate of 
damages has been made for entirely new equipment to replace old, 
worn out, and badly deteriorated material. The claims have in all 
cases been substantiated by the affidavits of two or more persons, 

25765—08 5 



64 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

but the unreliability of native testimony of this kind is so well known 
that the board has had no hesitancy in rejecting claims that were 
improbable or that Avere contrar}?^ to official reports of responsible 
officers, • * 

All occupation of churches and convents by United States troops 
were a military necessity, and as a rule they were the only buildings 
in the town suitable for protection of troops from inclemency of the 
weather, and of ample accommodation. If there were other suitable 
buildings in the town, those of the church, being of fortress-like con- 
struction, were more capable of successful defense, held control of the 
town, and their occupation therefore Avas essential. 

In the advance of the American forces it was found that the insur- 
gents generally occupied the churches and convents, and resisted the. 
advance from these buildings, leaving them only when driven out by 
proper military actions. Upon the scattering of the American forces 
at times a very small garrison would be left in a place, and upon these 
occasions the insurgents often attacked the building with the purpose 
of capturing the defenders. In this manner a great amount of dam- 
age was done to the churches and convents, especially to the windows, 
shutters, roofs, etc., by rifle fire. It has been impossible to properly 
segregate damages of this sort from other damages that would be 
liable to have been done by troops living in the buildings. 

In all cases of claim made for loss of church property by fire it has 
been considered after due investigation that such claims come under 
one of three heads, viz : 

(1) Destruction as an act of war, either by being fired by the 
insurgents on the approach of the American troops, to keep them 
from falling into their hands; by being fired by bombardment by 
American troops; or by being destroyed by either force to prevent 
the buildings being used as cover by the opposing force. 

(2) As a case (jf wanton damage, as being maliciously^ fired, or 

(3) As an accident. 

In none of these cases mentioned can the question of damages be 
considered or a recommendation for payment be made without vio- 
lating the precedents that have heretofore guided the Government 
in the settlement of claims. 

The word " convent " or "convento " as used in this report means 
the residence of the priest and includes " casa parochial," or parish 
house and " convento," which properly means the house occupied by 
one of the religious orders. 

During all important sessions of the board the Catholic Church has 
had a representative present, and such representative has generally 
signified acquiescence in action taken by the board. At the various 
sessions the church has been represented by Right Rev. D. J. 
Dougherty, bishop of Nueva Segovia ; Right Rev. Frederick Rooker, 
bishop of Jaro; Right Rev. Thomas A. Hendricks, bishop of Cebu; 
Apostolic Administrator Monsigneur Barlin, of the diocese of Nueva 
Caceres; Rev. Father M. Caruana, private seci^etarj^ to the apostolic 
delegate, and the Reverend Father Sanchez, c^^non of the Cathedral 
of Manila, while the papal delegate has been constantl}'' in touch with 
the work of the board, and suggestions from him have at all times 
received the consideration and attention they deserve. 

The work of the board has been greatly facilitated by the attitude 
of all of these dignitaries who have recognized the difficulties to be 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CI AIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 65 

surmounted, and whose entire conduct has been marked by the 
greatest fairness. 

The church authorities as at present constituted are our friends 
and helpers in the establishment and preservation of law and order 
in these islands, and are upholders of the authority of the United 
States. Their work here has been made hard by the amount of 
damage that the church has suffered due to war, and the amount 
awarded by the board, viz, $363,030.19, will not begin to compen- 
sate for the loss so inflicted. This amount, however, is justly due 
from the United States, and is most urgently needed by the church 
in its work here. 

It would be improper for us to close this report without mentioning 
the work of the officers and men that have served here with the 
Army of the Philippines in relation to the care they took of church 
property that came within their hands. Our people without dis- 
tinction of religion have the greatest respect for all kinds of prop- 
erty, and especially is this marked when the property is dedicated 
to religion and education. Many of the officers took the same care 
of the propertj^ as if it had been the property of the United States 
and stringent orders forbidding damage were promulgated, and 
swift punishment followed the detection of persons failing to obey. 
It is believed that no army could have had a cleaner record. 

In all assemblages of large numbers of men it is unfortunately true 
that some will commit acts detrimental to the good reputation of all. 
It happened here that a number of unknown individuals have com- 
mitted waste, and the part to be most regretted is that such actions 
were not called to the attention of the commanding officers at or 
near the time of commission so that investigation could be made, the 
guilty properly disciplined, and due reparation made. There has not 
been a commanding general here who would not have been glad to 
have had the cooperation of the church authorities in- the prompt 
reporting of all vandalism. 

Our instructions, contained in exhibits " A," " B," " C," and " D," 
are inclosed and made a part of these proceedings, and to the best of 
our ability they have been carefully followed. All documents bear- 
ing on the individual claims, consisting of Exhibits 1 to 1258, inclu- 
sive, are likewise inclosed and made a part of these proceedings. 

Under the provisions of the orders convening this board we have 
the honor to recommend that Congress be asked to appropriate the 
sum of $363,030.19 United States currency for the payment of rentals 
of and damages to church property, Philippine Islands. 

If Congress should in its liberality desire to compensate the church 
for the spoliation and carrying away of sacred ornaments, images, 
vestments, etc., we recommend that the sum of $40,000 be paid, as, 
in the opinion of the board, this sum would be fully ample. 

All of which is respectfully submitted. 

J. A. Hull, 
Lieutenant-G olonel^ Judge- Advocate. 
Alexander O. Brodie, 
Lieutenant-C olonel, Military Secretary. 
J. W. Moore, 
First Lieutenant, Second Cavalry. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



Committee on Insular Affairs, 

House of Representatives, 

January 20, 1908. 
The committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry Allen Cooper, 
chairman, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM H. TAFT, SECRETARY OF WAR. 

The Chairman. This morning we are to hear the Secretary of 
War on the subject of the claims of the Catholic Church in the 
Philippine Islands for damages to property of the church during 
the insurrection. 

Mr. Secretary, will you please proceed in your own way? 

Secretary Taft. Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit embarrassed in 
this matter, because I was before the committee last year and made 
a statement with reference to these claims, and I really have nothing 
to add in respect to them now. 

The Chairman. There are new members of the committee, Mr. 
Secretary, who did not hear your statement of last year. 

Secretary Taft. Oh, yes. To go back to a little history, there was 
a revolution against Spain in the Philippines in the year 1896, led 
by Aguinalclo and other insurgent leaders. This revolution was 
finally settled by what was known as the treaty of Biac No Bato, 
which involved the payment of three installments- of , I think, some- 
thing like $500,000 each — perhaps a little more — and certain other 
terms upon which, subsequently, the parties were never able to agree. 
That is, the parties were never able to agree on what the terms were, 
and the embers of the revolution were still glowing when we went 
into Manila Bay, where Admiral Dewey defeated the Spanish fleet. 
When he turned to Aguinaldo, who followed him over, and suggested 
that he assist him in taking Manila, Aguinaldo went ashore and re- 
organized his insurrecto forces. 

During that insurrection of 1896 there had been, I think, some 
destruction of church property. The whole insurrection had an 
agrarian tinge in this, that the Spanish friars were regarded by the 
people as the agents of the Government in reporting to the Governor- 
General persons guilty of sedition, and that aroused a very bitter 
feeling against the friars. The friars owned in Cavite, where the 
insurrection began in each case, both in 1896 and in 1898, 125,000 
acres of the best land. 

The Chairman. In order that the record may be clear to the 
reader, when you refer to " agents of the Government " you of course - 
mean agents of the Spaniiih Government. 

67 



68 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IIST PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Secretary Taft. Yes, of the Spanish Government. In 1898 the 
feeling against the friars was shown in that 40 of them were killed 
and 300 imprisoned, and the American Government had to intervene 
to save a great many of them. 

The ownership of the lands was in Cavite, in the old province of 
Manila, which lies just north of Manila, in Bulacan; in Morong, 
which is just east of Manila; and in Laguna, which is still further to 
the east, on the south side of the lake. All those things contributed 
to the feeling of bitterness against the friars. They had about 60,000 
tenants on their lands — 60,000 tenants who had to pay rent, but who 
paid no rent after the year 1896. Therefore, when the war came on 
there was a good deal of feeling against the friars; and while the 
feeling of the people toward the church as a church was friendly 
enough ; against the parish priests, most of whom were Spanish friars, 
the feeling was very great. As a consequence, it was not very diffi- 
cult for the leaders of the insurgents, especially Luna, to initiate a 
policy of destroying as much church property as they could, and so 
in his retreat north, Luna destroyed every church tliat he had time to 
destroy and also as many conventos as he could. That led to a very 
considerable loss to the church, for which the American Government 
was not in the slightest degree responsible. But as we enlarged our 
forces and sought to suppress the insurrection, which had ceased to be 
an organized rebellion of organized armies, but had become a guerilla 
warfare extending all over the islands, we had to enlarge a number 
of our posts until they reached some five hundrod. In so doing, of 
course, we had to provide for the housing of our troops in that num- 
ber of posts. 

Now, in the Philippines, in a good many of the villages, the only 
buildings of strong material — to use the expression they use there — 
are the churches and conventos, the convento being what we call the 
rectory, the priest's house. This is ordinarily a building nearly as 
large as the churcfe, with a good manj^ rooms in it — a place in which 
entertainments are given, and in which the people have a sense of 
ownership, and which in the olden times was used, reall}^, as the only 
^otel in which to entertain people. It was the only building, there- 
fore, adapted for the occupation of the troops, unless they used the 
church. And so it was that these rectories in the islands and espe- 
cially in those villages where the priests had been driven away, were 
used by the American troops. 

This claim of $363,000 for rent and damages during the occupa- 
tion of the American troops in these rectories and churches of the 
islands is just an ordinary claim for rent and damages for occupa- 
tion. That is all. 

Now, I laid down the rule which was to govern the investigation 
by the board appointed to make it, of which I think Colonel Hull 
was the chairman. Perhaps the letter I wrote on that occasion is in 
the record. 

Colonel Hull. This is the entire letter, Mr. Secretary [submitting 
same] . 

Mr. Crumpacker. That will go into the record as part of your re- 
marks ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. It is dated September 2, 1905. I will read 
the letter if you wish to hear it. 

The Chairman. We would like to hear it. 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 69 

Secretary Taft. It is addressed to General Corbin, who was then 
in command of the Philippines. I remember dictating it on board 
the transport Zo^an, in Manila Bay. (Reads:) 

Transport Logan, September 2, 1905. 

General : I am in receipt by reference of August 4 of the communication of 
August 3 to the military secretary of the Philippines Division by Lieutenant- 
Colonel Hull, judge-advocate and president of the board of church claims. 

In this letter of "August 3 Colonel Hull, on behalf of the board, requests 
instructions on certain points, which I nov^ take up in their order : 

First. Church property the title to which was probably in Spain. 

Colonel Hull says that a number of buildings, such as the cathedral and 
various archbishops' palaces, were constructed mainly by the Spanish Govern- 
ment with Government money, were known as buildings of the state and 
were kept in repair from funds of the central treasury. He says that the 
question as to the ownership of the archbishop's palace at Nueva Caceres was 
before me while I was civil governor in the islands, but that no determination 
was made that would clearly guide the board, and asks whether, under the 
circumstances, the board shall report such claims for payment. 

Personally, after having looked somewhat into this matter of title, T have 
no doubt whatever that the cathedral and the various archbishops' palaces 
belong to the Roman Catholic Church. It is true they were constructed partly 
out of funds furnished by the Spanish Government and on land belonging to 
the Government, but they were constructed in accordance with the concordat 
in which the Spanish Government agreed to furnish the churches and other 
ecclesiastical buildings used for ecclesiastical purposes, and by the very act 
of construction and of delivery to the church authorities the title in equity 
passed, whether what we would call legal title passed or not. For that reason 
I think the rents for such buildings and the damages in use and occupation 
ought to be paid by the Government of the United States to the Roman Cath- 
olic Church, and the board reporting, in cases where doubt arises, that such 
doubt exists, should nevertheless include in their award the amounts for the 
rent of such buildings and for damages in use and occupation. 

Second. Damages incident to military operations and as an incident of war. 

Colonel Hull saj'S that a number of such claims have been submitted — for 
example, the claim for Paco church, amounting to ^=554,785 ; that at the 
outbreak of hostilities in February, 1899, this church was occupied by insur- 
gents, and was shelled by the United States artillery, and during the engage- 
ment the church was set on fire and destroyed. 

As to this class of claims, of course no recovery can be had. Tlie property 
was destroyed in the train of hostilities and the loss sustained must be borne 
by the persons upon whom inflicted. The Government of the United States can 
not be made liable under any such circumstances for any damages incident 
to war. 

Third. Wanton damage by soldiers, theft of church property, etc. 

It is said that a large number of cases with an immense aggregate have 
been filed which fall under this head ; that so far as the board has been able 
to look into these cases it will be impossible to ascertain any facts in relation 
to this class ; that the witnesses presented by the church will seldom swear 
to more than the goods disappeared while the Americans were in possession ; 
that such a long time has elapsed that the statements will be so vague as to 
be almost impossible to contradict ; that it is a well-known fact that some 
damage was done by American troops, but every case that came to the atten- 
tion of the authorities was promptly investigated and the guilty persons pun- 
ished and reparation made whenever it was possible to do so; that no com- 
plaints were filed by the church authorities while the events were fresh and 
evidence obtainable, and it is believed that it is now impracticable to make 
any investigation ; that the improbability of many of the claims is shown by the 
fact that items of silver, etc., are claimed as taken away by the Americans, 
although the property had been abandoned by the church and was in the pos- 
session of the insurgents for a long time. 

With respect to this class of claims, all I can say is that the board must use 
its sound discretion. Under the principles of law, which are well understood, the 
wanton destruction of property by an enlisted man or a number of enlisted men, 
without the authority either given in advance or conferred afterwards by ratifica- 
tion in pais of the commanding officer, does not make the United States respon- 
sible ; but there must be in such cases many instances of damage or destruction 



'fv^ 



70 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

by enlisted men in the course of the occupation of the building that were either 
directly authorized by the commanding officer or were of such a character that 
the commanding officer must, in the occupation of the building, have anticipated 
that such damage would take place and so, in effect, authorized it. 

Now, there is a class of damages usually incident to occupation by soldiers 
with respect to which the Government might always be made liable. The. 
seizure, however, of sacred vessels, of sacred vestments, presumed only by their 
absence at the end of the occupation by the soldiers, I should regard as of very 
doubtful validity unless the evidence were direct tending to show thot this 
course was taken by the soldiers and authorized by the officers, and especially 
are presumptions of this character not to be indulged in where there was pre- 
vious occupation by the insurgents and where the evidence is not distinct of 
what the condition of the buildings was when entered and the presence of par- 
ticular property when the United States entered into occupation. I do not intend 
to advise the board to be technical or to be illiberal in estimating damages to 
property ordinarily incident to occupation by troops who are not particularly 
careful of the property in which they live, but I do wish to advise against the 
allowance of large damages for the disappearance of particularly valuable 
vessels or vestments which were probably stolen long before the troops entered 
into occupation and with respect to which it is to be supposed the church au- 
thorities would exercise the utmost care in their preservation before the occu- 
pation of the property by the troops. I can not give more direct instructions on 
this point and musf trust to the careful examinaion of the board in not making 
unreasonable and excessive recommendations, but in allowing everything in the 
way of damages which might reasonably have been anticipated by those familiar 
with the methods pursued by soldiers in an enemy's country in the occupation 
of buildings with the relaxation of discipline that follows such unusual circum- 
stances. 

Fourth. Damages done by the insurgents. 

Of course no damages can be paid by the United States for injuries inflicted 
by the insurgents. 

Fifth. Rentals and damages caused by ser-^ants of the civil government. 

Of course such rentals and damages are not to be paid out of the Treasury 
of the United States, but if there is any claim sufficiently well established to 
justify the board to make recommendation for damages caused bj'' agents 
of the civil government, they may very well make an estimate, and through 
the commanding general forward it to the Governor-General of the islands. 

Colonel Hull concludes with the statement that it is the understanding of 
the board that the report will be made the basis of a recommendation by the 
War Department to "Congress ; that the church is not presenting its claims 
as to its strict legal rights, but with the intention of asking an equitable amount 
from the liberality of Congress, and that it is the desire of the board in its 
report to adopt a similar view and, while rejecting all claims that may be 
extortionate or exhorbitant, to be guided by an honest endeavor to deal fairly 
and equitably with the claimants. 

This conclusion of the board states correctly the attitude of the War Depart- 
ment in this matter, and a report based on this view will be recei^"ed by the 
War Department and approved and forwarded to Congress with its earnest 
recommendation for appropriation. 

Very respectfully, Wm. H. Taft, 

Secretary of War. 

Maj. Gen. Henry C. Corbin, U. S. A., . 

Commanding General PlvUippines Division, Manila. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Mr. Secretary, I would like ask you a few ques- 
tions in regard to the different classes of claims that have been inves- 
tigated and have been submitted to us for consideration, including 
also the bases of liability, if there be any. In the first place, I under- 
stand that where an army appropriates property to its own use or 
occupies buildings for its own purposes — that is, property of non- 
combatants — it is responsible for the rent and for the damages that 
ma}^ reseult from its occupancy or use. 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 7l 

Mr. Crumpacker. And in all this class of cases there would be a 
liability on the part of the Federal Government for that part of dam- 
ages or use? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Now in the event that our troops occupied prop- 
erty and there were acts of vandalism or wanton destruction by our 
soldiers or prisoners of war that were confined in church property, I 
assume we would also be liable for those acts as incidents of our occu- 
pation, because we occupied the position of tenant, and the owner was 
unable to protect his property, and we assumed the responsibility of 
the tenant in charge to prevent acts of waste. What is your judg- 
ment as to that? 

Secretary Taft. I have laid it down pretty strictly in this letter. 
I should think the tenant would be liable in such a case for anything 
that he might reasonably anticipate by reason of the character of the 
tenancy. I think that the construction of the rule of law is that the 
Government is not liable for the wanton destruction of property 
against orders by the private soldier, but where the Government 
knows that the character of discipline is such and the circumstances 
are such that that kind of destruction is likely to follow occupation, 
so that it could be reasonably anticipated, I think that the rule would 
be modified. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I want to suggest to your mind a limitation on 
that proposition of nonliability for wanton acts without authority 
of the commander. See how it strikes you. I have no doubt that in 
an army of occupation there may be wanton acts of destruction by 
soldiers in the way of pillaging, and so forth, for which there is no 
responsibility. But suppose private property be occupied 'at the 
order of the commanding general, and as a result of that occupancy 
and in connection therewith wanton acts of destruction are com- 
mitted ; it struck me that those were equivalent to acts of waste, and 
the occupant would be responsible. 

Secretaiy Taft. I think that is a fair statement. It is a question 
of what may be reasonably anticipated, it seems to me ; and where it 
is due to lack of discipline 

Mr. Crumpacker. But, Mr. Secretary, if a man occupies the prop- 
erty of another and excludes the owner from it, does he not assume 
the obligation or function of protecting the property ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes ; that he would use reasonable care. He is not 
a guarantor, but he is required to use at least reasonable care. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Now, I understand we occupied church property 
as military prisons, and confined therein Spanish soldiers, and pos- 
sibly insurgents 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir — — 

Mr. Crumpacker. Spanish soldiers and possibly insurgents, who 
may not have been altogether friendly toward the religious organ- 
izations. 

Secretary Taft. The Spanish soldiers were. 

Mr. Crumpacker. It might have been foreseen that there would 
be damage from that sort of occupation. Now, we destroyed one or 
two valuable pieces of property deliberately and intentionally as acts 
of war, to prevent those pieces of property from falling into the 
hands of the insurgents. 



72 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 

Secretary Taft. I do not recollect any instances of that, but Colo- 
nel Hull may recall some. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Colonel Hull stated one case the other day of 
^considerable importance. He said that our troops destroyed, on our 
evacuation, property to the value of $220,000, and that was for the 
purpose of preventing the property, on our retiring from that part 
of the country, from falling into the hands of the enemy. 

Secretary Taft. I remember the case of a building that was de- 
stroyed — the church of Guadeloupe. 

Colonel Hux,L. That was the case I referred to. It was destroyed 
by General King. 

Secretary Taft. Was it not occupied by insurgents, and did we not 
fire on them with artillery? 

Colonel Hull. It was destroyed by a company from California by 
fire. 

Secretary Taft. I thought they had used the place as a fortress, 
and that the American artillery set fire to it by bombardment. 

Colonel Hull. They tried to, at one time, but failed. 

Mr. Crumpacker. In cases of that kind I suppose there would be 
some question, under the law, as to the Government's being liable. 

Secretary Taft. I should think. Judge Crumpacker, that that 
would be properly in the train of war. It is so intimately connected 
with the train of war that it might be considered an unavoidable 
incident of war. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Of course that was the intentional destruction of 
the property of noncombatants ; not an accident or incident, but an 
intentional destruction. I think with you that perhaps under the 
law there is no liability, and yet it comes nearer to the class of injuries 
that may be called purely incidents of war. 

Secretary Taft. Suppose an army were retreating across a river 
on a bridge, and when the army got to the other side, in order to pre- 
vent successful pursuit, it burned the bridge. There is no doubt but 
that burning would be in the train of war, and I do not see any dis- 
tinction between that case and the one you put with reference to the 
church building. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes. That is in pursuance of the policy pursued 
by Sherman during his march to the sea during the civil war. 

The Chairman. They might destroy a church to prevent its being 
used as headquarters of an insurgent force. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The only legal claims against the Government, 
then, would be those for property used, for the use of conventos and 
churches used by our troops as headquarters and as military prisons, 
and the damages that were incident to such occupation? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The question about the pajanent for property 
destroyed to prevent its falling into the hands of the enemy addresses 
itself to the sense of magnanimity of our Government, rather than to 
its justice as a matter of legal liability. 

Secretary Taft. Rather than to the legal rights? 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes. 

Secretary Taft. I recommended, when it was here before, that this 
amount of $363,000 might well be increased to $500,000 or more on 
general principles of equitj^, and I have not changed my views on that 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 73 

subject at all, especially in view of the last reports. I think that 
$363,000 is much too low for rent and damages in occupation by our 
troops. It is much too low, because of the difficulty of bringing in 
evidence so long after the event.. I think the board went through the 
matter with great care. But there are a great many claims filed in 
excess of the $363,000 that, nearer to the event, might have been 
proven. The burden, of course, was on the claimants; but with the 
immense loss that the church suffered from war and other causes, I 
am quite sure that the increase of $363,000 to half a million dollars or 
more will be no injustice. I am speaking now of the church claims, 
and not the friars' claims, which are a separate matter. 

Mr. Ceump ACKER. Colonel Hull the other day gave a statement of 
the character of the investigation, and it seemed to be a very fair 
and thorough investigation. But in pursuing your order he said 
we occupied church property, conventos, and churches, and if there 
were wanton acts of destruction by our own troops while occupying 
them, the commission allowed nothing for them. It struck me that 
was not just. We were under obligations to protect the property 
against wantonness and acts of vandalism, and if acts of wanton 
waste were committed we would be responsible. 

The Chairman. I do not understand that that is in the testimony. 

Mr. Madison. No. I understand the question was dealt with lib- 
erally, and that liberal consideration was given to it. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Colonel Hull stated, as I understood him, that 
the commission allowed nothing for damages inflicted by our troops 
while occupying conventos and churches. I understood him to 

Colonel Hull. That statement is correct, but in addition to that 
the board found, if you will recollect, that $40,000 gold, in their 
opinion, would fully cover the wanton damages done by American 
troops. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I see that is in your report, and that would be 
added to the $363,000, if we assumed that we were liable for that 
class of injuries. 

Colonel Hull. Yes. 

Secretary Taft. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go back a little 
bit in the statement, and 

The Chairman. Pardon me a moment. This is a point we can 
dispose of right here, and you can comment on it in your testimony. 
Here is what the board said, as referred to by Judge Crumpacker, 
It is on page 78 [reads] : 

111 all cass of claim made for loss of church property by fire it has been 
considered after due investigation that such claims come under one of three 
heads, viz : 

(1) Destruction as an act of war, either by being fired by the insurgents on 
the approach of the American troops, to keep them from falling into their 
hands ; by being fired by bombardment by American troops ; or by being de- 
stroyed by either force to prevent the buildings being used as cover by the op- 
posing force. 

(2) Asa case of wanton damage, as being maliciously fired, or 

(3) As an accident. 

In none of these cases mentioned can the question of damages be considered 
or a recommendation for payment be made without violating the precedents 
that have heretofore guided the Government in the settlement of claims. 

That was what the judge- advocate. Colonel Hull, testified to. 



74 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, will you please proceed? 

Secretary Taft. The first official reference to these claims I think 
you will find in the correspondence between Cardinal E,ampolla*and 
me with reference to the settlement of all the church controversies in 
the islands ; or perhaps the first reference is in the letter of Secretary 
Root to me — a letter of instructions with reference to my visit to 
Rome. 

The Chairman. That is when you Avere governor-general of the 
Philippines ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir. I stopped there on my way to the 
islands. That is found in Volume I, of the Report of the Secretary 
of War of 1902. 

General Edwards. That is in Appendix O. 

Secretary Taft. Yes; Appendix O, on page 345. [Reads] : 

Provision sliould be made for ascertaining what rentals, if any, ouglit to be 
paid for conventos and other church buildings which have been occupied by 
United States troops during the insurrection, this being of course subject to 
further specific action by Congress. 

I had filed those letters of instruction with Cardinal Rampolla, and 
his answer was this [reads] : 

The damages sustained by the Catholic Church in the Philippine Islands on 
account of the war constitute an object worthy of special attention in an 
amicable arrangement with the American authorities. Besides the acts of 
vandalism perpetrated by the insurgents in the destruction of churches and the 
appropriation of sacred vestments, there were occupied by the American Gov- 
ernment episcopal palaces, seminaries, convents, rectories, and other buildings 
intended for worship, and these were also partly damaged. The Holy See 
learns with satisfaction that the American Government is not dishicliiied to 
indemnify according to justice the Catholic Church for such losses and dam- 
ages ; and this may be effected either by the restitution of buildings so occupied 
or by just compensation. On these matters the apostolic delegate will be in- 
structed to come to an understanding with the American authorities and secure 
a just settlement. 

In reply to that,^n my response of July 3 to Cardinal RampoUa's 
communication, I said [reads] : 

Fourth. The United States Government has occupied many churches, con- 
ventos, and other buildings of the Roman Catholic Church and its orders in the 
islands for a year and sometimes for a longer period, and has as yet. it is 
understood, paid no rental therefor. It is projiosed to ascertain the reasonable 
rentals and a certain class of damages, if any are ]>roven, for the liuildings thus 
occupied by means of a finding of the persons constituting the tri))unal of arl)i- 
tration already described. 

I had proposed arbitration upon certain conditions. Then I con- 
tinued [reads] : 

The United States, it is understood, has never included and paid in compen- 
sation for such occupancy as this any damages, except for injury or alteration 
to the property authorized bj^ the commanding officer of the occupying troops, 
either expressly or tacitly, nor is compensation ever allowed for injury done to 
buildings in the train of war. 

It will perhaps turn out in some cases that the churches and conventos were 
in villages in which the whole population was engaged in insurrection against 
the United States, including the priest in charge, and in such a case it is pro- 
posed to leave open to the United States the defense that it was occupying only 
enemy's property during the time of war and was not liable therefore to pay 
compensation. Of course the validity of such defense must be submitted to the 
members of the tribunal. The Secretary of War, under whose general authority 
the buildings were occupied, has authorized me to agree to this method of ascer- 
taining the ainount due, but as there is no present authority in the laAvs of the 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 75 

United States to submit the question for final arbitration, the Secretary can only 
agree to submit tlie ascertained result to Congress for its action. The money to 
be paid in these instances is not the money of the Philipi3ine government, but 
the money of the United States, and it can only be drawn from the Treasury on 
the appropriation of Congress. There is no probability that Congress would re- 
fuse to provide the money to satisfy the conclusion thus fairly reached. 

That is, by arbitration. That was one of four issues that I proposed 
we submit to arbitration, it being a condition that the friars should be 
withdrawn from the islands and should not be sent back to the parishes 
as parish priests. 

Now, I am not as familiar with the recent evidence taken as doubt- 
less some of the members of the committee are, and certainly not as 
familiar with it as Colonel Hull is, and I can only say generally, as 
1 said before, that the condition of the Eoman Catholic Church in the 
islands is dej^lorable, because of the destruction of these buildings and 
because of the absence of money with which to conduct the church. 
Under the concordat the Spanish Government paid the priests and 
paid most of the expenses of conducting the church, and furnished the 
buildings and the land. Now, by reason of the separation of church 
and state, due to the transfer of sovereignty, the money to administer 
the church has to come either from the outside or from the people ; and 
it is a very difficult thing to go from one system, where the govern- 
ment supports the church, to the other, where the church is supported 
by voluntary contributions. The churches in the islands are very es- 
sential to our plans for making the people better and educating them 
and elevating their moral tone, and therefore the prosperity of all the 
(;hurches in the islands is very important to the Government, and the 
Roman Catholic Church is the one that exists in every village in the 
islands. Therefore I always thought, in dealing with the church, that 
liberality toward it was liberality toward the Government and the 
people themselves; and liberality by Congress in recognizing the 
equity of these claims, and thus assisting the church, would be, it 
seems to me, in the interest of the people of the islands ; not sectarian 
interest, but an interest in favor of morality, of loyalty to the Govern- 
ment, of peace and tranquillity in the islands. 

A large amount was paid, not.to the church, but to the representa- 
tives or grantees of the orders — the religious orders — in order to 
avoid an agrarian question that would have led to another insurrec- 
tion. "We paid upward of $7,000,000 for something like 420,000 acres 
of land in the islands. That money went to the assignees of the 
friars. It was hoped that a good deal of it would remain in the 
islands for the aid and benefit of the church, and I am told that some 
part of it is to be devoted to the general church. Some part of it, 
too, has come back to the orders in the islands, and they have estab- 
lished schools, which of course are quite beneficial, and are aids to 
the public schools. They are now enlarging their school system and 
teaching English, and uniting with the Government in the effort to 
spread the English language through the islands. But the church 
as yet has received a very small part of this fund, as I am advised, 
and I think there is very great recalcitrancy — if I may say so — on 
the part of the orders with reference to letting the general church 
share in this large amount of money. 

The price paid for the lands was a good round price. It was a 
pyice which I think we shall ultimately work out as the value of the 



76 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

land increases; but the conditions on the islands now are such — due 
to the failure of Congress to let in sugar and tobacco into this country 
and to give us the benefit of these markets — that the sugar lands, 
which form a very considerable part of the friars' lands, are practi- 
cally of no value at present. They will have to be developed subse- 
quently. It is the rice lands that have marketable value now. 

Mr. Waspiburn. You are speaking now of the lands bought of the 
friars ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

Mr. Washburn. I heard the opinion expressed the other day that 
the price was greatly in excess of the value of the lands. Has the 
value of the land depreciated since it was bought? 

Secretary Taft. The land has depreciated, as the prospect of get- 
ting into the markets of the United States has disappeared. I am 
very hopeful that we may be able to arrange a compromise, either 
this year or the next, by wliich we can be allowed to import into this 
country something more than we ever imported from the islands 
before: and if we do, it will increase the value of the lands. 

Mr. Washburn. Do you know whether it was recognized then 
that the valuation of the lands was excessive? 

Secretary Taft. The way we reached it was this: We employed 
our own surveyor, selected by the Philippine Commissioners, who 
was acquainted with the value of lands, and he went about and ap- 
praised the value on all the lands. Then we had a hearing, at which 
we heard the representatives of the friars. All of it is printed in the 
reports. Finally we settled on an increase of 25 per cent over his 
valuation. 

Mr. Washburn. Why was that ? 

Secretary Taft. We did that in order to get the lands at all. Con- 
gress had made a provision for their condemnation. The Dominican 
order had sold their lands to what is called the Philippine Sugar 
Company, and the Philippine Sugar Company had determined to go 
into a large exploitation, with the hope of the passage of the Philip- 
pine tariff act, and improve their lands, and they were determined 
not to sell. They employed Coudert Brothers, of New York, under 
a contract by the payment of $50,000, by which the Coudert Brothers 
should contest the constitutionality of the law passed by Congress 
which authorized the condemnation of lands — on the ground that it 
was not for a public purpose ; but only in order to avoid their being 
held by objectionable persons. They said that the power of eminent 
domain did not compel a transfer for that purpose, and therefore they 
resisted and fought the right of the Government. Inasmuch as that 
involved a lot of prospective litigation, and as the pressure upon us 
was very great for the removal of the difficulty — which I do not know 
that I have explained — we Avere willing to go beyond the estimate 
of the value of the lands for the sake of peace. 

Mr. Washbutrn. There were some collateral considerations, then? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. These considerations I ought to state. The 
friars owned lands upon which there are upwards of 60,000 tenants 
in the Provinces of Cavite, Manila, Bulacan, and La Lagtma, the four 
Tagalog provinces in which insurrection always begins and in which 
there is most likely to be disturbance. In the parliament or constitu- 
tional convention called at Malalos by the insurgent government, tjie 
first thing thej^ did with regard to these lands was to nationalize 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IIsT PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 77 

them; that is, they appropriated them to their government without 
any payment at all to the friars. That put the tenants in the position 
of saying that the friars had no title, -but that the title was in the 
government, and therefore they refused to pay any rent at all. The 
minute the United States courts and justices of the peace, and so 
on, were established, as in a civil government, the friars we're at 
liberty to go into court to recover, first, the rent, and if the tenancy 
was denied, then to go into court and recover the lands and eject 
the tenants; and that is what they proceeded to do. In every case 
we had a disturbance and in every case we had a riot, and with the 
prospect of 50,000 ejectment suits in that part of the islands where 
insurrection was liable to be rife anyway, if we did not remove that 
cause of trouble we would have a much more costly war on our hands 
than the cost of the purchase of the lands at a good round price 
would be. 

Now, I was advised, when I was in the islands, that all the sala- 
ble lands, that is, the rice lands, which were coming into the mar- 
kets — I was advised that on those lands $5,000,000 could be realized; 
that the sugar lands and the sugar plants had gone down in price 
for reasons I have alreadv stated, and were unsalable, and out of them 
we must work out $2,000'',000— I mean of the $7,000,000 that Ave have 
paid. We have had to go slowly, and make low rental leases in order 
to get all the tenants to attorn without controversy and litigation; 
but the process is a slow one. Still I have, myself, very great con- 
fidence that in the course of a decade we will work out the whole 
transaction in a way that will not produce any loss at all, or if it 
is a loss, it will be very slight, as compared with the benefits derived 
from the purchase of the lands. 

Mr. Gakrett. Mr. Secretary, I have forgotten what the showing 
was, when the Philippine tariff bill was before the House two or 
three years ago. Are the markets more restricted to the Filipinos 
now than they were prior to our occupation? 

Secretary Taft. They are, but not through any transfer of sov- 
ereig-nty. There was a mistaken idea, due to a misunderstanding of 
the character of the tax imposed on sugar that went from the Phil- 
ippines to Spain, that the Spanish market was open to the Philip- 
pine sugar. As a matter of fact, there was an internal tax on sugar 
which went to Spain which did not appear in the foreign customs 
law, that made the tax quite as heavy as it is in this country. My 
impression is that there has been a restriction in the sugar market 
available to the Philippine sugar in Japan, and perhaps in some 
other countries, and that the price of sugar has been lower than 
would make the cultivation of sugar in the Philippines profitable. 
There was a time when the total export of sugar from the Philippines 
was 265,000 tons. But that was the high-water mark. That is hardly 
more than half what is exported from the Hawaiian Islands to-day 
into this country. But I should be entirely willing — indeed, all the 
sugar interests in the islands are quite willing — to have a limitation, 
like 350,000 tons, placed on all the sugar exported from the islands 
into this country, in order to purchase from the sugar interests in 
this country their consent to such a bill for the reason that that 
amount would restore the former prosperity, and would give us in 
the provinces that are affected by this lack of a sugar market a condi- 
tion that would be quite satisfactory to the people. On the other 



78 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

hand, it would not lead to the exploitation of the islands for sugar 
as much as occurred in Cuba. I have never been in favor of making 
the Philippines a sugar country in the sense of absorbing with the 
sugar industry all the islands, for the reason that I have seen it work 
in Cuba, and I know it is not good for the islands. It is not good, 
first, that they should be dependent upon a market that is so affected 
by political considerations as the price of sugar is; I mean these 
agreements with reference to bounties in Europe, and the constant 
agitation which is going on with respect to sugar duties, which affects 
the price of sugar. Secondly, if we exploited the islands in sugar 
and were allowed such a market in the United States, and it were 
increased as it has increased in Cuba — although I do not think it 
would, even without any limitation — I think the limitation on labor 
is such that they could not increase as has been done in Cuba. 

Nevertheless, assume that it is so; assume it, as it is done by the 
sugar interests in this country, that it would increase to 1,500,000 
tons. We should have a capitalistic class there, a foreign class, who 
would own all the great sugar plantations, and a class of unskilled 
laborers, with no small farming or middle class between ; a condition 
that would make it very difficult to build up a self-governing and 
conservative community. I would much prefer a division in the 
character of the agriculture there — what would you call it 

Mr. Madison. A general diversification? 

Secretary Taft. Yes; I would much prefer a diversification of 
agriculture. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Have 3^ou in mind what proportion of that 265,000 
tons you speak of comes to the United States? 

Secretary Taft. I do not think that more than 100,000 tons of it 
came to the United States. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Has not most of the exportation of sugar been 
confined to Japan and China, and is it not a fact that there is little 
that has come hereTto the United States under any circumstances? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madison. Supposing we permitted 350,000 tons of Philippine 
sugar to come into this country free of duty. Then how much do you 
think we would get? 

Secretary Taft. I doubt if we would get more than a half or two- 
thirds of the crop. I think the demand would probably increase the 
price in China. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Is not that the hope of those who advocate the 
admission of Philippine sugar into the United States free, that the 
increased demand for sugar in the markets of the United States 
would increase the price in Hongkong and Japan and China ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. It is the dependence of the people of the 
Philippine Islands on. our sugar market that keeps the price so low 
at present. 

Mr. Madison. How much of the land in the Philippines can be 
devoted to raising sugar? I have heard different statements about 
that. 

Secretary Taft. I suppose that all but the rocks could be used to 
raise sugar. I mean that sugar would grow, but the question would 
be whether it could be grown profitably or not. As to that I can not 
tell you. 

Mr. Madison. That is what I mean. 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 79 

Secretary Taft. They have been making sugar there in the Philip- 
pines for centuries, and they have been using the land best adapted 
to it, and that is in Negros,"Pampanga, Cavite, and La Laguna, and 
part of Manila; and if you look into the question of percentage of 
available land that is used in any country or any State for the growth 
of a particular product, you will find that it is a very small percent- 
age of the area that might be available if all the land could be used. 
Now, in the hearings we had last year Mr. Wellborn, the superin- 
tendent of agriculture in the Philippine Islands, went into the per- 
centage of land in Louisiana that Avas used for sugar. Now there is 
a great deal of land available there, but I think it was only about 
half of 1 per cent. Was it not, General Edwards? 

General Edwards. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Taft. So that method of reaching what would be put 
into sugar, by calculating the area that could be put into sugar, is a 
very unjust one. 

Mr. Madison. Yes. Now, I represent a district that is very much 
interested in the raising of beet sugar, the southwestern district of 
Kansas. You understand that they are developing that industry 
there, and we are interested in it, and the statement has often been 
made to our people that as a matter of fact a very small portion of 
the land of these Philippine Islands, the tillable lands, could be used 
for the production of sugar at a profit. That is the reason I made 
the inquiry. 

Secretary Taft. That is true, but it is not due to the soil alone. It 
is due also to other conditions. For instance, the price of sugar is 
affected by the price of labor very materially. The price of labor 
in the islands has now increased to double the old Avages, and in some 
cases to treble. The plantations in Negros are complaining all the 
time of the absence of laborers. They have to import their labor 
from other islands. The presence of the railroad constructors in 
Cebu, Negros, and Panay has still further increased the price of 
labor, so that the cost of labor to the Philippine planter has been 
materially increased. That, of course, necessarily limits the produc- 
tion. The labor is not good labor for the production of sugar — I 
mean it is labor that works only three or four days in the week, but 
it has been very cheap labor in the past. 

Now with the increase in the price of labor it has become a heavy 
burden to the planter; and that, I think, is one of the reasons why 
the sugar industry has not thrived in the islands. I think it would 
thrive to some extent if we could get a market like the United States, 
where we could get in behind the tariff wall. 

Mr. Madison. There would not be any difficulty, would there, in 
finding lands there sufficient to produce the 350,000 tons, and a great 
deal more? 

Secretary Taft. There is no trouble about that. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. The Chinese exclusion law applies to the Philip- 
pine Islands, and that prevents them from getting more labor of that 
kind? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. As I remember, the sugar lands of the Philippines 
very rarely over 2 tons to the acre, and very seldom that; usually 
li tons? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

25765—08 6 



80 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Mr, McKiNLAY. And yet in the Hawaiian Islands they sometimes 
produce as much as 8 or 10 tons to the acre. Why is that? 

Secretary Taft. It is owing to the enormous capital invested in the 
Hawaiian Islands and the special care taken in the preparation of 
each acre. The irrigation and treatment of the land is enormously 
expensive. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Do you think if the Philippine lands were han- 
dled in the same way they would produce the same quantity of 
sugar ? 

Secretary Taft. There is some soil in the Philippines that is as 
well adapted to the production of sugar as the land in the Hawaiian 
Islands, but most of it is not. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. I understood from the statement of the man in 
charge of the experiment stations there that he could not produce, 
he said, more than 2J tons per acre with expert tillage of the soil, 
and then have only one rattoon crop afterwards. 

Secretary Taft. Yes. Of course they use in the Hawaiian Islands 
very expensive manure, or some chemical fertilizer that is very expen- 
sive. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. I inferred from the testimony of that expert that 
even with the different methods used in Hawaii the production of 
sugar could not be the same in the Philippine Islands as in Hawaii. 

Secretary Taft. I doubt if it could, myself. 

Mr. Madison. As compared with Cuba, so far as the total product 
of Cuba is concerned, the Philippine Islands could produce much 
more sugar under proper tillage and proper incentive in the way of 
tariffs, could they not? 

Secretary Taft. I doubt it. There are enormous tracts of land in 
Cuba that are unoccupied. 

Mr. Washburn. Wliat is the cost of labor now in the Philippines 
as compared with ihe former cost ? 

Secretary Taft. It has increased from 75 to 100 per cent. 

Mr. Washburn. What is it to-day ? 

Secretary Taft. Of course it varies in various parts of the islands. 

Mr. Washburn. Speaking generally? 

Secretary Taft. My recollection is that they pay about 40 cents 
gold for a day laborer on railroads per day, and they are able with 
that labor to build roads at slightly less per labor cost than in this 
country. 

Mr. Washburn. And you say that that labor is from 75 to 100 per 
cent higher than formerly? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, rice is the principal product there 
now, is it not ? There is more acreage in rice than anything else ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

The Chairman. Rice is the staple food there, is it not ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes; rice is the staple food. The great staple 
for export is hemp. 

The Chairman. I was going to come to that, so that the question 
as to whether all the lands in the Philippines can raise sugar is not 
really a practical question, because there is land that can be put into 
hemp or into rice much more profitably. They must raise rice 
enough^ to support 7,000,000 or 8,000,000 of people. Recently they 
had to import some? 






CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 81 

Secretary Taft. Yes ; I am sorry to say that in 1904 we had to pay 
between $12,000,000 and $15,000,000 gold for rice sufficient to feed 
the people. But that has now been reduced to $8,500,000, and that 
is an evidence of the growing improvement in the islands and an 
evidence of the fact that the attention of the people has been called 
to the production of other agricultural products than sugar. 

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the fact that although the Span- 
iards had been there for three or four hundred years, and with all 
that occupation by civilized people there were not, at the time we 
went there, more than one hundred and some odd thousand acres 
devoted to sugar, and five hundred and odd thousand acres devoted 
to rice, and not more than 200,000 acres at the most have been de- 
voted to the production of sugar, shows that there is little likelihood 
that 

Secretary Taft. You know those figures better than I do ; yes. 

Mr. Madison. But is it not true that the Spanish administration 
was such as to discourage the people from the development of any of 
their agricultural resources? 

Secretary Taft. The trouble was that they did not place any bur- 
den upon the owners of the land. It was the common peojole who 
had to pay the taxes. A large amount of tax collected was what 
was called the "sedula" tax. 

Mr. Madison. I asked if the general style of government was not 
such as to oppress the general class of people. Now my idea is that 
we should, if possible, assist in the division of the lands of the islands 
among the people. If that policy had been followed by the Spanish 
Government, if they had encouraged small holdings, is it not reason- 
able to say that there would have been a great deal larger production 
of sugar ? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir ; I do not think so. Sugar is the one thing 
that needs more capital than anything else to produce it. You can 
not have small sugar farmers. 

The Chairman. We want to settle these church claims, and this 
committee has nothing to do with the tariff. 

Secretary Taft. I am very glad to discuss it. I have been advo- 
cating as hard as I could — as some of the gentlemen here will con- 
cede — the free admission of sugar and tobacco into the markets of 
this country from the Philippines; not, as I have frequently said, 
to injure interests of the same character in this country, but because 
I am confident that such a procedure will not injure them. And so 
confident am I of that, that I am entirely willing to impose a limi- 
tation that will aid the islands and will not injure the interests here ; 
for we have talked with the sugar men, and they admit that the ad- 
mission of 350,000 tons from the Philippines into this country would 
not be a drop in the bucket, so far as tliey are concerned, and would 
not affect their interests, while on the other hand I contend that it 
will restore prosperity to the sugar interests in the islands, and then 
the islands can go on to a prosperity which I am sure is in store for 
them in hemp and other products which are not in competition with 
the interests of this country at all. 

The Chairman. Copra is a valuable product, too? 
Secretary Taft. Yes. It is growing every year. I may say that 
copra and rice and hemp have the advantage over sugar, in that they 
do not need such an enormous capital to develop them, and in their 



82 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

development they do not involve the separation of the community 
into a very rich and a very poor class, but they lead rather to small 
farms and to the development of an industrious, active, intelligent 
class of farmers. 

Mr. Madison. Now, may I just ask this question? I may say now 
that I am not captions about this matter. If the chairman thinks that 
he is mistaken. Neither are my people inclined to be unreasonable 
about this question. I am asking for information, and with no 
other motive in the world. Now, I want to ask 3"0u this question: 
Do you think that the conditions under the Spanish regime were sat- 
isfactory to the development of the sugar industry, or w^ere they in- 
clined to be otherwise, so that a comparison with the conditions under 
the Spanish Government and the conditions which we hope to inaugu- 
rate under the American Government would be a fair comparison ? 

Secretary Taft. Well, I am very hopeful that, if you will give us 
markets here, we can develop the sugar industry beyond the point of 
its former prosperity. But the sugar interests of the islands were 
very prosperous in the old days, and I do not think the Spanish Gov- 
ernment attempted to restrict it. 

Mr. Madison. Were the conditions favorable to its growth and 
development ? 

Secretary Taft. No; not beyond a certain point, because they did 
not care to go into it. A Spaniard or Filipino planter got a certain 
amount of money, and he would be rich one season and then he would 
spend his money in jewelry and banquets and things of that kind, so 
that in another season he would get into debt, and there would be 
usury, and the next thing he knew his plantation would be tied up. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Did not the Spanish tariif amount to more on the 
Philippine sugar than the American tariff? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir; practically. 

Mr. Madison. Y(e can not say that it argues anything, because the 
sugar production attained only a certain point under the Spanish 
regime, that it will not attain a greater height under the American 
regime ? 

Secretary Taft. I think it would. I am hopeful that it would. 
But of course you can not change human nature by law, and the same 
strain of human nature obtains there to-day that did obtain in the 
Spanish days, so that we can not look to such a development of the 
sugar industry in the islands as we could look for in Kansas, for 
instance, with respect to the development of this beet- sugar industry, 
which is growing to the point of reducing the cost of sugar far below 
what we would could afford to import it at from the Philippines. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. There is a great deal of fear that some day the 
Philippine Islands will be developed as extensively in sugar as the 
Hawaiian Islands or Cuba. Now is it not likely that there will be a 
larger development of rice than of sugar? Is there not more of a 
tendency to increase the production of copra and of rice and of hemp 
than to increase the production of sugar ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir ; that is true. Understand me ; ni}^ argument 
in favor of introducing sugar and tobacco into the markets of the 
United States, free, was based on the hope that it would not injure 
the interests of the United States, and that argument is based on this, 
that there comes over the tariff wall to-day sixteen hundred thousand 
tons of sugar, which pays either the full tariff, or 20 per cent less than 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTE ISLAISTDS. 83 

the full tariff, and that the sugar interests of this country could not be 
affected until there was raised in the Philippines sixteen hundred 
thousand tons to take the place of that quantity which now comes in, 
because so long as the sugar comes over the tariff wall, so long will 
it make the market price include the duty paid. I predict that we 
would not have got up to 1,500,000 tons of sugar in any event, and I 
did not care to see it go more than that. Then I was met with the 
proposition, " If you do not, why not impose a limitation ? " I am 
ready to impose a limitation if Congress wants to put it on. That 
is the position I am in. 

What I want to get is something that will develop those provinces 
in the islands where sugar has been produced for centuries, and where 
the depression in sugar production affects the whole condition of the 
islands. That is what I want to do. Not only that, but the sugar 
interests in the islands are entirely content with that. They are not 
fighting any other interests. The people of the islands, if they can 
get this concession, will be entirely satisfied. So likewise with re- 
spect to the tobacco interests. If we can effect a compromise, that 
would bring about a permanent settlement, and the limitation would 
prevent undue exploitation of the sugar industry. I frequently use 
the first person singular when I should use the plural, but you know 
we get interested in a controversy and overlook that point. 

If there was only free trade here with the Philippines, your in- 
terests would not be particularly affected, and for this reason, that 
the minute you require a large amount of labor, as you do in the 
Hawaiian Islands, where they have been importing Chinamen and 
Japanese to such an extent — the minute you do that in the Philippines 
you increase the price of labor by leaps and bounds, and you can tell 
it by the price of labor with respect to hemp. Why, gentlemen, in 
certain parts of the season where the pulling of hemp is necessary to 
develop the hemp industry, the price of labor goes up to six or seven 
gold dollars a day in the Philippine Islands. Of course it is skilled 
labor, and a great many men are not able to do the hard labor re- 
quired in the pulling of hemp properly ; but I cite that to show that 
the Philippine Islands are not a community in which the demand for 
labor does not affect the price. If you exploit your sugar industry, 
you put the price of labor up, and when you put the price of labor up, 
its cost increases to a point where the production of sugar ceases to be 
profitable. I am very glad to have had this opportunity to discuss 
this subject here. 

Mr. Madison. I am very glad to have heard you, and I thank you 
for the information. 

Mr. Crumpackek. You recommended, Mr. Secretary, when you 
were before the committee before, that we should appropriate a lump 
sum to the authorities and allow the distribution to be made through 
the agency of the church. 

Secretary Taft. Yes. My recollection is that I recommended to 
double the $363,000. What I thought was, that in view of the cir- 
cumstances there ought to be an equitable allowance in addition to 
the exact legal finding which was made. 

Mr. Crumpacker. In view of the fact that they are our own people 
and under our political control, we ought to deal fairly, and a little 



84 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

more than fairly, with them under the circumstances. It would be 
money well invested. 

Secretary Taft. Yes. I have been told that this price paid for the 
friars' lands ought to affect this question. That was a good round 
price, probably more than the lands would have sold for if they had 
been sold to a private individual. But the purchase by the Govern- 
ment, especially in my experience in Spanish- descended countries, 
is that the Government never gets land at the price which a private 
individual could buy it at. 

The Chairman. It is $17.50 an acre. 

Secretary Taft. There was a great deal of it that was not worth 
anything like that. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The friars are not included in this $363,000? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir. 

Mr. Crumpacker. We are dealing now with the church claims 
exclusively ? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. I did not feel anything like the same sense 
of equity with respect to the friars' claims as with respect to the 
church elaims. 

Mr. Jones. I want to ask if it is not true that we have never ac- 
quired, under that purchase or in any other way, any large part of 
the most valuable holdings of the friars? 

Secretary Taft. Oh, no. 

Mr. Jones. Is it not true that a very large estate, the Mandeloian 
estate, stretching about 8 miles between Manila and Bulacan, worth 
some three or four million dollars, was not inckidecl in the purchase ? 

Secretary Taft. There is an estate that was taken out of the pur- 
chase for the reason that the land had been sold to the railroad com- 
pany for the purpose of construction, and therefore we consented 
that that should be left out. But that that is the most valuable part 
is untrue. 

Mr. Jones. I h^ve been informed about that recently by a gentle- 
man who has been there for many years and has been familiar with 
the surveys of land, and he says these lands are actually worth three 
or four million dollars and stretch along for T or 8 miles. 

Secretary Taft. They were left out by the Augustinians, because 
they had already sold a part of those lands to the railroad, and on 
account of the fact that they did not present an agrarian question 
they were left out, in order to make the trade. Doubtless if we had 
included them we would have had to pay a larger sum. Then there 
were some exceptions made with respect to some sugar lands, be- 
cause the Philippine sugar estates company wanted to do some sugar 
business. It was no easy matter, gentlemen, to get this matter 
through. The negotiations stretched over two years. The Domini- 
cans, whose lands were most valuable, were determined to stand out. 
It was, as I say, only after a great deal of negotiation that we put 
it through. 

Mr. Jones. I understood that perfectly, and yet I am convinced 
that we paid three or four times the proper price of land in Mindoro. 

Secretary Taft. There are 60,000 acres in Mindoro and 60,000 acres 
in Isabela, but they are so remote from Manila that it is difficult to 
dispose of land there, and we were tr^dng to clean up. We had to pay 
more in some places than the land was worth, although we 'got land 
elsewhere that was worth more than we paid for it. 



' ' CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 85 

Mr. Jones. You liave not sold any yet? 

Secretary Taft. ISTo. We do not want to sell it yet. It is better to 
hold it and wait a little while. 

Mr. Hamilton. There were political questions to be settled that 
were far more important than the sale of those lands. 

Secretary Taft. The surveys have not been completed, but surveys 
of tracts for tenants have been begun, but they take a long time to be 
m.ade. 

Mr. Jones. I think the last of these lands was bought in October^ 
1905, and since that time until the 1st of July last our total receipts 
in the Philippine Islands in the way of rents, etc., were about 
¥=325,000. 

Secretary Taet. I think the amount is something more than that 
but I do not recollect exactly what it is. But whatever it is, it would 
not affect in the slightest degree my view of the situation, because 
You are dealing with a lot of lands that have been occupied by tenants 
You are dealing with a lot of lands that have been occupied by tenants 
Avithout any rent. We purchased not only the lands, but the rentals 
of these lands since 1896 which have not been paid. They were trans- 
ferred to the Government, and what we were buying was peace. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Has there been much objection on the part of the 
tenants to paying rent to the Government? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. You say they expected the lands to be nationalized 
if the insurrection was successful. Were these tenants to buy them 
from the Nationalists? 

Secretary Taft. Our taking them, over seems to have satisfied them, 
and we were advised it would satisfy the tenants with reference to 
their willingness to attorn the Government. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. They do not have a disposition to assert their own 
title to. the land ? 

Secretary Taft. There are some cases of that in Cebu, and some 
cases in La Laguna. We had to go slowly and diplomatically in 
dealing with all those people, because thej are not very intelligent, 
and it is quite a sensitive subject with them. 

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the aggregate of claims was approxi- 
mately ?=4,000,000, and the award was $363,000. In your judgment 
does that err on the side of extravagance as against the Government? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir; I do not think it does. 

The Chairman. You think that is a perfectly just award? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. I was asked a while ago about how this 
ought to be paid. 

The Chairman. Colonel Hull did attempt to indicate how payment 
should be made. Should it be made to some authority in the islands ? 

Secretary Taft. I think the bishops of the various dioceses, includ- 
ing the Archbishop of Manila, have a legal right to give a binding 
receipt for compensation for damages of this sort, because under the 
canonical law, as I understand it, the title of all church property is 
properly in the bishop of the diocese, and therefore the archbishop 
could properly receipt for every parish in the islands. The real party 
in interest in each case is the parish having the church and the con- 
vento which was occupied or injured. 

The Chairman. As to the title, what is your understanding of the 
decision of the supreme court of the islands ? 



86 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Secretary Taft. They have decided that the title is in the Eoman 
Catholic Church, but the person who properly holds the title under 
the canonical law is the bishop. Therefore I think that the Govern- 
ment would be safe in accepting the receipt of the bishoj). 

Now I know from the correspondence that we have had that the 
church is very anxious to have the money paid, if it is paid, to a rep- 
resentative of the church, like possibl}^ the apostolic delegate in the 
islands. If the bishops of the dioceses consent to that method of 
payment, and will give the receipts, then I think the Government will 
be entirely safe in paying it to the agent designated by the head of 
the church. 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Secretary, would there be any objection to limiting 
the expenditure of this money to objects in the islands? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir. I wish certainly ithat would be the case. 

Mr. Joi^ES. I should fear if it were paid to the apostolic delegate 
it might be used outside of the islands; in Spain, for instance. 

Secretary Taft. If there were any danger of that, I should like 
some limitation made to prevent it. 

Mr. Helm. Wliere would you have the right to control it if it is 
paid? 

Secretary Taft. You could only require a stipulation that it 
should be expended in the islands; an agreement by the person re- 
ceiving it. That would be about all. 

Mr. Hamilton. If this were apportioned in a lump sum, and it 
were a liberal allowance, how would you apportion the payments 
among the various parishes ? 

Secretary Taft. It would be very difficult for Congress to attempt 
to do that, and all that could be done would be to turn it over to the 
bishops for distribution, so far as possible, for losses sustained by 
the various churches. 

Mr. Hamilton. Then there might be a little margin over that for 
liberality, and in that case what would you do with that? 

Secretary Taft. You would have to leave that with the bishops to 
distribute, I want to say, with reference to the distribution of the 
money, that 

Mr. Madison. From your knowledge, Mr. Secretary, of the charac- 
ter of the men who have had the distribution of the friars' funds, 
would you say it would be proj^erly expended ? 

Secretary Taft. There would not be a cent that would get out of 
the islands if it went to the hierarchy of the islands. The bishops 
are not the persons who have had to do with the distribution of this 
friars' land fund. They have not received the mone}^ which they 
expected to receive. Of course the Government in making this 
friars' land purchase could not impose a limitation as to what should 
be done with the mone5^ although we did hope, from the statements 
made by Cardinal Eampolla. that the money would be applied to the 
religious needs of the islands. Here is what was stated by Cardinal 
Rampolla to me (reads) : 

This result will be all the more easy to attain since the resources of the 
religious will remain under the control of the supreme authority, to be devoted 
also to the spiritual needs of the church in the archipelago, besides which the 
representation of the Holy See, in accord with the diocesan authorities, will not 
permit the return of the Spanish religious of the above-named orders in the 
parishes where their presence would provoke troubles or disorders. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 87 

That is one of the unenforceable considerations not mentioned in 
the contract that led us to ouy the lands, and another was an arrange- 
ment by which, if a parish priest is sent back to a place where a dis- 
turbance is likely to arise by reason of his being a Spanish friar, he 
is recalled at the instance of the governor-general. 

That was another source of very great difficulty that we had to 
deal with. The church was without priests, except the Spanish 
friars, and there was very strong temptation, therefore, where people 
were without any religious instructor or priest at all, to send the 
Spanish friar back; and the sending of the Spanish friar back always 
created disturbances and always led to bitterness of feeling, charged 
against the Government, which, they continued to suppose, regulated 
what priest should be sent ; and by reason of this friars' lands settle- 
ment, we were able to eliminate those Spanish friars from the par- 
ishes, substantially in all cases. There are some few friar parish 
priests left, but very few. By this time the church has been able to 
educate a number of native priests, and it has been bringing them 
out, so that ultimately the priests in the islands will all be natives. 

The Chairman. What treasury paid for the friars' lands? 

Secretary Taft. The Philippine Islands treasury. The money 
was raised by bonds issued under authority of Congress, but by the 
Philippine government on bonds of the Philippine government, 
which the United States has not guaranteed. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. In case Congress should add an equitable amount 
to this $365,000, the amount of the award, is it not a fact that every 
parish has an ambition to rehabilitate its church and convents, and 
would naturally press the bishop to give them as much as possible of 
the amount in order to repair again the church in the community, 
and that would naturally cause an equitable distribution of the 
amount among the various parishes? 

Secretary Taft. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Madison. We might increase the allowance made by the board 
to a certain extent? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

Mr. McKinlay. Would it not be better left to the bishops of the 
dioceses ? 

Secretary Taft. I think so. You can be more certain that the 
money left to the bishops of the dioceses will go promptly to the in- 
terests you have in view. 

Mr. Washburn. Have not the interests so changed that they would 
not want to rehabilitate the churches where they were ? 

Secretary Taft. Generally the churches were built so solidly that 
they would rehabilitate them where they stand. Generally the}^ are 
built according to the Spanish architecture, with thick walls, and the 
bases of a new building would be found in what remains of the old 
buildings. So much of the old buildings would be left that it would 
be more economical to repair them than to build new buildings. 

Mr. Washburn. The conditions have not so changed as to render 
the entire reconstruction of these buildings in other places necessary ? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir. 

Mr. Davis. Is it feasible to pay this money to the respective bishops 
of each diocese? 

Secretary Taft. It could be. 



88 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Mr. Davis. Would it not have to be secured in some way ? 

Secretary Taft. That is suggested on the report of the committee, 
is it not? 

Mr. Davis. I understood from Colonel Hull that it was to be giA^en 
to one individual — the papal delegate, and 

Secretary Taft. I have no doubt that the money would be distrib- 
uted perhaps with more usefulness if it were left with the Arch- 
bishop of Manila or the apostolic delegate there. But I was speaking 
particularly of a legal method of procuring release from the legal 
obligation against the Government. You might make a payment to 
one person on condition that he presented a release from the bishops 
of the dioceses. 

Mr. Davis. This question suggested itself to me in consequence of 
the idea of trying to retain, if possible, these funds in the islands. If 
given to the respective bishops, do you think it would be more likely 
to be retained in the dioceses than if it were given to one delegate at 
large ? 

Secretary Taft. I do not think there will be any danger that the 
money will not remain in the islands. It is needed so badly that it 
will stay there. 

Mr. Madison. I understood Colonel Hull to snj in effect that the 
people already had written authority to represent the different 
dioceses, and that he can settle up this entire matter and give the 
Government a receipt, and all responsibility on the part of the Gov- 
ernment would end right there. 

Colonel Hull. There was a representative of the bishops before 
the board, and I said he could get a legal quittance from the bishops 
and file a receipt. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The archbishop is an American? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. All the bishops are Americans except one, 
and he is a Filipino. 

Mr. Crumpackise. There would be no likelihood of using that 
money anywhere else than on the islands if the money were paid to 
the bishops, and the receipt of the bishop of each district Avould be a 
sufficient release? 

Secretary Taft. Yes. 

The Chairman. Would there be a 113^ difficulty in having a pro- 
vision in this bill to the effect that the money should be paid to the 
Archbishop of Manila for distribution to the provinces upon his 
presenting a receipt or authorization from each of the bishops? 

Secretary Taft. No, sir. I believe he does not care for the re- 
sponsibility. 

Colonel Hull. I know there is liable to be trouble over that, from 
the fact that the archbishop has no control or authority over the finan- 
cial arrangements of the other bishops, and if there is given anything 
in the way of a gratuity it would be a question as to whether they 
would get an equitable portion of it. 

Secretary Taft. I think the church authorities generally would 
much prefer to have it given to one man, in order that its distribution 
should be made equitable, with a view to circumstances that it is 
hardly possible to make clear to the conxmittee or to Congress. 

Mr. Crumpacker. If he turned it over to the archbishop he would 
distribute it through the ag:ent of the church there ? 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 89 

Secretary Taft. Yes. I think if you appropriate the money it will 
not make much difference how you jfix it — ■ — - 

Colonel Hull. Except that the Archbishop of Manila is one of the 
interested claimants. 

Mr. Parsons. Then the Archbishop of Manila does not in a finan- 
cial way represent the head of the church there ? 

Secretary Taft. He is head of the province. He calls conferences, 
and he 

The Chairman. He could take charge of this money if Congress 
should so direct by law? 

Secretary Taft. Yes; he could. 

The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, do you think of anything addi- 
tional that would be pertinent here? 

Secretary Taft. I do not think so. There is a great deal about this 
matter in the reports of the Secretary of War. 

The Chairman. If we should want to call you again this week — — • 

Secretary Taft. I am at your disposal. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 



Committee on Insular Affairs, 

House of Representatives^ January 21^ 1908. 

The committee met at 10.30 a. m., Hon. Henry Allen Cooper, 
chairman, presiding. 

The Chairman. We will this morning take up again the question 
of the Catholic Church claims in the Philippine Islands. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. JOHN BIDDIE PORTER, IT. S. ARMY, ASSIST- 
ANT TO THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL, U. S. ARMY. 

The Chairman. Major, will you please give your name and rank? 

Major Porter. Maj. J. B. Porter, judge-advocate, U. S. Army. 

The Chairman. Have you been in the Philippines? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlien? 

Major Porter. I was there from the fall of 1899 until the begin- 
ning of 1902. 

The Chairman. In what capacity? 

Major Porter. I went out there as an officer of infantry with my 
battalion, later was on staff duty in Manila, and finally was appointed 
a judge-advocate and remained in Manila on the staff, although not 
doing judge- advocate's work. 

The Chairman. During those three years you became pretty thor- 
oughly acquainted with conditions in the Philippine Islands, did vou 
not? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. For a good many months I was on a 
board of claims taking under consideration civil claims, and later I 
became assistant to the secretary to the military governor, who was 
the officer having entire charge of civil affairs under the military 
government. I remained in Manila under General Chaffee, in charge 
of civil affairs for that portion of the islands that were not imme- 
diately turned over on the 4th of July, 1901, to civil control. 



90 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IIsT PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. While servmg in that capacity, was your attention 
called to the Catholic Church claims in the Philippine Islands ? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. They were a source of constant discus- 
sion. They were constantly coming up, in one form or another, for 
consideration. 

The Chairman. What was the character of the claims brought to 
your attention? 

Major Porter. They were extremely varied. Of course from the 
time that we took over the government of the Philippines the Cath- 
olic Church sought to straighten out its position. That was the begin- 
ning, and we had all sorts of claims put in then, while various au- 
thorities of the church would call upon us to do quite impossible 
things under our system of government, which they did not always 
seem to understand. These were largely efforts to cause us to do 
things in the way of restoring to them various properties, and so on, 
and so on. Later came up the question of rentals and damage done 
to their churches in one form or another, either by our own army or 
by the insurgents. It would be hard to say what was not suggested 
in those early days to the military governor and his officers along 
those lines. 

The Chairman. Do you know of any church property — conventos, 
etc. — being occupied by our troops or by prisoners ? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. However, of the occupancy by Spanish 
prisoners I know only by reports and from having gone over the 
jDapers. ^Vlien the army entered the city of Manila, on the 14th of 
August 



The Chairman. Of what year? 

Major Porter (continuing). Eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, 
it became necessary to house the surrendered Spanish garrison. We 
took over the barracks for our own troops, and it therefore became 
necessarj^ to house the Spanish garrison elsewhere. This was done 
by putting them iji the convents in the city of Manila. I do not 
mean by the term " convent " the parish house, as we constantly use 
the term. Those were the actual convents of the four orders in Ma- 
nila, and the latter at once began asking for • 

The Chairman. Can you give the names of those four orders? 

Major Porter. The Dominicans, the Franciscans, the Augustin- 
ians, and the Recoletos. The Jesuits have never during all the time 
that we have been in the islands appeared as one of the orders in the 
sense in which the others have. They have remained quiet, and at 
no time when we speak of the orders have we included or contem- 
plated the Jesuits. 

The Chairman. Do they own property there — the Jesuits? 

Major Porter. I fancy they do, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you know anything as to that yourself? 

Major Porter. I know nothing except as shown by the church 
claims. There are certain claims which the Jesuits filed through the 
church proper. 

The Chairman. When you speak of " orders," in referring to these 
convents, you mean the friars ? 

Major Porter. I mean the friars. 

The Chairman. The four orders of friars who occupied these 
buildine:s ? 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 91 

Major Porter. I speak of these buildings in contradistinction to 
the church property which was OAvned by the church proper. 

In the country where there was a garrison established or a tem- 
porary sojourn made we depended mainly for quarters on the 
churches and the parish buildings, which are usually called " con- 
ventos." 

The Chairman. Those are distinguished from the friar properties? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. What do you know of the occupancy of that par- 
ticular property — the church property proper — by our troops or 
prisoners ? 

Major Porter. Speaking from my own personal knowledge, I occu- 
pied a part of the church at Bacoor. Our troops occupied the church 
as a storehouse, for quarters, and as a guardhouse, and the convento 
as a hospital. 

The Chairman. For how long? 

Major Porter. Well, I relieved the Fourteenth Infantry there, and 
I was there with my battalion a good many weeks, and I know that 
my successors continued to occupy it. I suppose that the total 
occupation must have been about two or three years. However, I 
am not prepared to say positively as to that. I am speaking only of 
general possession. 

The Chairman. That occupation was, I suppose, to the entire 
exclusion of the church ? 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. At Dasmarinas, where we were stationed 
for some time, the altar and adjacent parts of the church were used 
by the commissary as a commissarj^ storehouse, and the commissary 
himself slept on the steps of the altar. The middle of the church 
was used for general storage purposes and the front for a guard- 
house. The roof was used for a lookout and the sacristy for a com- 
missary sales depot. It was the only available house in the place. 
At Silang — these places are all in Cavite Province — I had occasion 
to go there frequently — I am giving you my personal observation — 
other regiments used the convento, although the church was still used 
for sacred purposes. The parish buildings and everything else adja- 
cent thereto were used for quarters and storage. 

The Chairman. When you refer to the convento in this instance, 
you mean the priest's house. 

, Major Porter. Wlierever I say " convento " I mean the parish, or 
priest's house. When another battalion of my regiment went to Taal, 
they did not occupy the church because they did not need it, but they 
used the convento. The church itself was barren, the insurgents 
having taken awaj^ the sacred images, ornaments, and everything of 
any value. We used the tower for a sentry lookout, but virtually 
the whole church property was in our possession for occupancy for 
months. The same was the case at Las Pinas, where some of my 
regiment was stationed. Of course there was a certain resultant 
damage, for, I regret to say, the average American man is rather a 
breaking animal. The Spanish troops while confined as prisoners in 
those convents in Manila — the convents of the friars — appear to have 
committed a large amount of wanton damage. They tore up music 
books, they scratched and broke the organs, and otherwise ruined 
considerable property. 



92 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. The Spanish soldiers did that? 

Major Porter. Our prisoners did it. I suppose we were respon- 
sible to the landlord when we took over the houses; I remember 
speaking to some of the friars who came to complain, and said, 
"Aren't they good Catholics?" They replied, "Yes, but they are 
soldiers;" as much to say when you become a soldier you lose all 
respect for everything. That seemed to be their point of view. 

The occupancy of the conventos was general throughout the is- 
lands. For instance, I was sent to Tayabas. There I observed that 
the church property was used. Services were still conducted there, 
as the church proper did not have to be occupied, but all the build- 
ings attached to it were used for military purposes — either as offices, 
as a storehouse, or as quarters. I observed the same in many other 
places. 

The Chairman. Speaking generally, in the various pueblos they 
were the only buildings which were available. 

Major Porter. Virtually so ; yes. A good many of them, of course, 
were susceptible of defense, which was another point which had to 
be considered in the days of hostility. A village made up of nipa 
shacks might have afforded shelter from the weather, but, as we have 
seen at Balangiga, where a company of the Ninth Infantry was mas- 
sacred, the occupation of segregated small huts in a hostile country is 
a dangerous practice. 

Mr. FoRNES. In occupying those churches and conventos, you re- 
moved pretty nearly almost all the furniture, did you not, such as 
the peAvs, etc. ? 

Major Porter. There were no pews. They have no pews in those 
churches; they have confessional boxes and sacred images and orna- 
ments. Beyond these there is virtually no furniture in the churches. 
When we found furniture in the conventos, we were only too glad 
to use it. , 

Mr. FoRNES. During the occupancy I presume you used the walls 
for the hanging of uniforms ancl such things, which meant the driv- 
ing of nails? 

Major Porter. The troops drove nails and tore down partitions, 
and did all sorts of things to adapt the premises to their new use. 
They made themselves absolutely at home. Sometimes the same men 
occupied these buildings for six months or a year at a time. 

Mr. Fornes. And in arriving at the estimate of the claims, was the 
restoration of the buildings taken into consideration? 

Major Porter. That I do not know, sir. I was not on the board. 
I presume the restoration of the buildings was taken into considera- 
tion. As assistant to the Judge-Advocate-General here in Washing- 
ton, with the knowledge I had generally of the situation — I went over 
the report of the board in Manila, and the review of the Judge- 
Advocate-General was to the effect that the recommended award 
seemed very moderate, considering what we knew in a general, off- 
hand way of the use of the buildings and the damage done to them. 

The Chairman. You are now stationed in the office of the Judge- 
Advocate- General in this city ? 

Major Porter. I am assistant to the Judge- Advocate-General. 

The Chairman. And you have gone over the matter of the record 
of these claims pretty thoroughly. 

Major Porter. Yes, sir. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 93 

The Chairman. From your stuch^ of the record, and from your 
knowledge of conditions as you found them from personal observa- 
tion and otherwise, what do you think as to the merits of the award 
of the board ? 

Major PoKTEK. I think the award is extremely conservative, Mr. 
Chairman; that is my opinion of it. I have no interest in it, one 
way or another, but the impression made on my mind, from what I 
have seen in the Philippines during- the two years and a half that I 
was in the islands, is that the estimates were very moderate, particu- 
larly considering the difficulty of replacing the property destroyed. 

The Chairman. There is one question of law I would like to ask 
you at this point. Suppose, during the occupancy by our soldiers of 
the priest's house "or convento, there was wanton destruction of the 
property by fire, what would you say as to the liability of this Gov- 
ernment ? 

Major Porter. What do you mean by wanton destruction? 

The Chairman. Suppose a soldier was drunk, and as a matter of 
deliberate malice outside of orders from his superior officers, and out- 
side of military necessity, but merelj'^ as a matter of pure, wanton 
mischief, destroyed church property. 

Major Porter. It would come within the rule that the Government 
is not responsible for the tortious acts of its servants. 

The Chairman. That is true. 

Major Porter, Generally speaking, of course, there is an equitable 
duty, you might say, on the part of the Government to straighten out 
wrongs that are done by its servants in that way. 

The Chairman. I observe that the Board, in reporting upon claims 
of that kind, say that they were all excluded from the award. 

Major Porter. We have got to do that. Congress may do things 
that we can not do. If we are called upon to report on the question 
of compensation to an individual for the tortious act of a soldier, 
we have got to say, "We can not pay you." Congress is under no such 
limitation, but we are. As a part of the executive, if the question 
comes up to us we have got to say that it is a well-settled point of 
law that the Government is not responsible for tortious acts of its 
agents. 

The Chairman. Of course, technically speaking, I suppose you 
would say that in this case the Government of the United States was 
the tenant and the soldier was the servant. That is the idea. 

Major Porter. That is the idea. 

The Chairman. The soldier not being the occupant, but the Gov- 
ernment being the occupant, and the soldier the servant. 

Major Porter. The soldier is the agent. 

The Chairman. I should say the agent ; but of course the Govern- 
ment is made up of individuals, so to speak ; it is not a physical cor- 
poreal entity. What would you think of the justice of the allowance 
of a claim where soldiers under the command of officers were occupy- 
ing a church or convento, and they deliberately set the building on 
fire, of our paying for it? 

Major Porter. I should say that justice required that our Govern- 
ment should compensate the owner; but if the question should come 
before me as a point of law based on former decisions, I would say 
that it could not be done by any executive agency. 



94 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, 

The Chairman. That is the attitude of the Judge- Advocate- Gen- , 
eral throughout. 

Major Porter. Yes; we have had to take that action; we have no 
latitude. We are not like Congress; we can only follow what the 
decisions have held to be the law. 

The Chairman. Major Porter, are there any other instances of 
destruction of property in the Islands that you now think of impor- 
tance to the committee to hear about? 

Mr. Crumpacker. Before we leave this point I would like to ask 
the Major a question. While it is the law that the Government is 
not responsible for the unauthorized and the wanton or tortious acts 
of its agents, yet where the Government takes possession of property 
for its own use and puts its soldiers and agents in the property, they 
appear to lose sight altogether of the obligation the Government as-- 
sumes to protect the property against the wanton acts of its own 
agents. The obligation of the Government when it takes possession of 
the property is that of a tenant who is bound to protect the property 
against the wrongful acts of his OAvn occupants. Noav, do you recog- 
nize any distinction between the wanton acts perpetrated by men who 
are in possession of property occupied by the Government, and casual 
wanton acts of destruction and violence that happen in the course of 
warfare or on the outside? Do 3^011 recognize any difference between 
that class of acts ? 

Major Porter. If the question be merely one of landlord and 
tenant, Avhy then, of course, we do not recognize the individual act 
by which the damage was done, but if a claim be made, as it fre- 
quently has been, resulting from the act of some particular soldier 
who is not in control, we have to fall back on the principle of which 
I have spoken. If they say, "You took over this building in perfect 
repair, and you should return it in the same condition in which jon 
got it," that is different. That is a case in which under ordinary 
circumstances we would say the ordinary rules applicable to land- 
lords and tenants appl3^ 

Mr. Crumpacker. And the Government then would compensate for 
the injury to the property, without any regard to how that injury 
occurred, of course, provided such injury occurred through its own 
agents. 

Major Porter. Yes, in a general way it woidd, and that could be 
met under ordinary circumstances by the current appropriations for 
barracks and quarters. 

Mr. Crumpacker. And that grows out of the responsibility. It is 
not based upon the damages perpetrated by the wanton acts of the 
soldiers, but out of the responsibility that the Government assumes 
in taking possession of the ]3roperty, to take care of it and protect it 
against waste and destruction. 

Major Porter. Yes, there is an implied contract to restore the 
building in the condition in which it was taken, with ordinary wear 
and tear excepted. 

Mr. Crumpacker. That is the civil law. 

Major Porter. The reason I spoke as I did is that we have had a 
great many claims filed, for instance, for the burning of a shack by 
two or three soldiers who went in there to sleep and set fire to it by en- 
deavoring to cook in a nipa hut according to the American fashion. 
They might as well have tried to do it in a powder factory. In 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IE" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 95 

cases of that kind we have had to say that these men were not author- 
ized to do what they did. 

In other cases where, for example, the Government has leased 
some of the best houses in Manila, the situation has always been that 
of landlord and tenant. We are usually responsible for damage 
beyond the ordinary wear and tear. 

the Chairman. Does that liability go to the extent of guarantor, 
or to the exercise of reasonable care ? 

Major Porter. Reasonable care, sir. 

The Chairman. It is your idea, as I infer from what you say in 
reply to Judge Crumpacker and in reply to my own questions, that 
if the Government were to allow for damages for the destruction of 
property, even though wanton, where we were in possession, as in 
the instances which jon have specified, that it would be only just. 

Major Porter. That is my opinion, yes, sir. That is what I have 
gathered. This question has been present with me for a number 
of years; for, while all of these church claims have been set aside 
until things were nlore generally settled, we were able to meet many 
other claims as they were presented. Wlien the church claims first 
came up, we said " This is not the time." We had not then looked 
into the question of our liability sufficiently in the matter of titles 
and desired to be guided by the civil courts on those points. I be- 
came very familiar, however, with these claims from June, 1900, when 
I went up to Manila on special duty and had charge of them. 

The Ohairman. To repeat what you have said, I understand your 
statement to be that the award of $363,000 is very conservative. 

Major Porter. Very conservative. 

Mr. Davis. I am not exactly clear on this question of liability, 
which Judge Crumpacker brought up, and I have been trying to 
find some case that would make it clearer perhaps. Suppose that 
from necessity arising from the state of war our army was on re- 
treat, and in so doing had, as it were, a necessity to occupy one of 
these conventos or church buildings, and the necessities of life, as 
you might say, that they break down, tear up an altar or any furni- 
ture that happened to be therein for their own defense or purpose, 
not authorized by any officer, but the soldiers considered that they 
should use this — perhaps unnecessarily so — but in their judgment 
they used it, would this be a claim that the Government should pay ? 
When it directly appeared to the board subsequently that this was 
absolutely unnecessary, although the soldiers at that time thought 
it necessary, but it proved to be wanton damage, what would you do 
with a claim of that kind ? 

Major Porter. Well, it would be very hard to say. If the dam- 
ages were done in the train of war it seems well settled that no pay- 
ment for damages is due. 

Mr. Davis. I understand that general principle. 

Major Porter. I think the case you mention would be a case for 
the evidence. If you €ould show that these men, even under the cir- 
cumstances of a retreat, were reckless and did unnecessary damage, 
the remedy would lie against the individuals if they could be found. 

Mr. Washburn. But not against the Government. 

Major Porter. Not against the Government. I think not. 

Mr. Davis. That is what I wanted to ascertain. That would be a 
case of recklessness of the troops, or supreme contempt for the church 

25765—08 7 



96 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

and its buildings, and if an officer were present without, perhaps, 
having attempted to prevent the acts — for soldiers are soldiers 
under certain conditions — and they would say, " Why, perhaps they 
were Protestants, and they did not care anything about the Catholic 
faith, and would just as soon burn the images and ornaments " • 

Colonel Hull. I hardly think that there was a case of that kind 
in the whole archipelago. 

Mr. Davis. I was trying to decide this point of Judge Crum- 
packer's ; trying to draw out the distinction 

Mr. Crumpacker. My question is predicated upon the theory that 
in all these cases the Government by its officers took possession of the 
property and excluded the owner, and therefore assumed the respon- 
sibility of landlord, put those soldiers in and by its own soldiers 
occupied it as a tenant. If the Government's own soldiers perpetrated 
acts of damage, whether wanton or otherwise, the tenant is bound to 
be responsible for regulating the acts of the soldiers. It is like a 
family who rent a house, and if the children do damage the tenant 
is responsible. 

Mr. Davis. I understand that your position is this, that if the 
Government of the United States, by and through its officers went to 
the owner of a church — the friars or whomsoever it might be — and 
said, " We want to occupy this church for quarters, for living pur- 
j)Oses," the parties are simply in the position of landlord and tenant. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Suppose they take possession without per- 
mission. 

Mr. Davis. Any damage then that was done where the Govern- 
ment is in the position of a tenant and where it deliberately went in 
for that particular purpose, then it ought to pay the damages, at 
least where all reasonable care could have prevented it. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Let me ask you— — 

Mr. Davis. (Continuing.) But, where in retreating hastily they 
come to the property without the knowledge of the owner, and in the 
train, partially, of war, you might say, and occupy it, then if the 
servants (the soldiers of the Government) committed wrong under 
any misapprehension of fact or otherwise, there seems to be a differ- 
ence between the two cases. 

Mr. Crumpacker. There is this difference I think. In the first 
place, there is no such case as you have stated, I understand, before 
the committee for its consideration. 

Mr. Davis. Because the American troops never retreated. 

Mr. Crumpacker. No, there is no such question for consideration. 
Your statement suggests the notion that a man who is a right doer, 
in the first place who gets consent is bound to do some things, but 
if he is a wrongdoer, he is relieved from any responsibility. My 
notion is — and I think it is true — that the Government obtained no 
consent of the proprietor or custodian, but as a mere matter of mili- 
tary necessity took possession of the property that was convenient, 
the only property that was of the kind they needed. 

The Chairman. Noncombatants. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes. Took possession. I say that they are 
subject to some degree of responsibility. I do not say that the occu- 
pation of the buildings by our soldiers under any circumstances was 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 97 

wrongful. I say that the occupancy of the church property may 
be of two kinds: First, by consent of the owner and by agreement; 
and next from apparent necessity owing to the business they are then 
engaged in, either advancing or retreating, which partakes to a 
certain extent of the train of war. 

Mr. Graham. I supposed that all the occupancy was without the 
consent of the owners. 

Major Porter. Almost entirely. There were no terms or agree- 
ments. 

Mr. Crumpacker. The}^ just took possession of it. 

Colonel Hull. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred that is 
correct. 

Mr. Davis. Are not there some cases in which they spoke to the 
authorities and said that they would like to occupy the property? 

The Chairman. That would come under the head of " contracts." 

Mr. FoRNES. The Government requires protection for its soldiers. 
Those buildings, as it has been stated, were used not only for the 
housing of the soldiers, but also for fortress purposes, as I under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Graham. And prisons. 

Mr. FoRNEs. Let us look at the justice of it. If we had not used 
some of these buildings, we would have had to build forts or else 
take the chance of losing a great many more soldiers. The lives of 
soldiers are, of course, very valuable. No estimate can be placed upon 
them. This property was there, and the Government saw fit to make 
use of it. Now, any technical point of law, whether they were landlord 
or tenant, then the relation was there still. The Government took ad- 
vantage of this property in order to maintain, or to take advantage 
of it they destroyed a certain share of it. Now, as it is properly 
stated here, the allowance is yery conservative. At this point I want 
to ask a question for my own information, being the first time I have 
had the honor of attending one of the meetings of this committee — 
I am a new Member also. Are these claims assumed to cover all 
damages to the property, or are there other claims pending against 
the Government by the church? 

Major Porter. No; there are no other claims. 

Mr. Fornes. This is the final judgment for the use of all the 
church property? 

Major Porter. There may be individual claims for various things, 
but the only ones that are before this committee are for the use of 
the premises and the resultant damages thereto. 

The Chairman. Major, do you think of anything else that you 
desire to submit to the committee? 

Major Porter. No, sir; except that point which was raised a few 
moments ago. I venture to say that during the first year or two, no 
church property whatever was entered into by the consent — that is, 
outside of Manila — with the consent of the landlord, if we call the 
church the landlord. We went there, and we found that property 
and we used it. Later, when things settled down and it became 
necessary to occupy private buildings, a quartermaster would lease 
them just as we would here in Washington if we had to occupy 
similar property. 

Mr. FoKNES. As I understand you to say, not only for the housing 
of soldiers, but also for defensive purposes ? 



98 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Major Porter. Defense, storage, and everything. You must re- 
member that a great point also was to get a roof over our men. 

Mr. Davis. In any country where the citizens are engaged in 
war they must expect damages to their property by the enemy. 

Major Porter. We never looked upon the Filipinos as enemies. 

Mr. Davis. Well, they lived in a country where a contest was going 
on. The inhabitants ought to stand some of the injuries of war be- 
cause they live in a count^ry where war is going on. 

Major Porter. Our theory was that we ought not to consider the 
Flipinos at large as inimical to the United States. There were cer- 
tain misguided men among them, but Ave never looked on the country 
at large as though in a state of rebellion, although a state of war 
existed. 

Mr. Davis. They were like Old Dog Tray — in involuntary com- 
pany. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Forces. This property which you occupied was never used 
as against the Government of the United States in any way. T\Tiat 
I mean by that is, to shelter the enemies of the United States, or in 
any way to protect them by saying : " We will give you the benefit 
of this property." 

Major Porter. In a good many of the churches the insurgents had 
prepared to defend their position. I do not know of any case where 
they actually did it. 

Mr. FoRNES. Take forcible possession of the property? 

Major Porter. They would take forcible possession if they could 
and say, " We are going to hold this as a stronghold," but I know of 
no instance in which there was an actual fight at the church. 

Colonel Hull. They fired upon us from that church [indicating 
photograph Pateros]. 

Mr. Madison. There was no instance where the church gave over 
property voluntarily for the use of the enemy. That is what I'v.r. 
Fornes was getting at. 

Major Porter. No, no. 

The Chairman. Now, Major, do you know of anything else in ref- 
erence to these claims of importance to the committee to know ? 

Major Porter. Nothing except to say that we looked upon all 
these properties as being occupied under a constructive contract. 
No regadar contract was possible. The enemy had taken to the 
woods^if we call them an enemy — some of the priests had been mur- 
dfred niid s"me had been chased into Manila. I know of no case 
where it was possible to enter into any formal agreement to occupy 
these churches or properties. 

The Chairman. Have j^ou anything further that you care to say to 
the committee? 

Major Porter. No, sir. 

Mr. Helm. There is a question I would like to ask the major, if I 
may be permitted. If the Government is responsible for the willful 
and malicious acts of one of its soldiers in destroying property, on 
the same theory would it not be responsible for the willful and 
malicious acts or murder of an individual? For instance, if the sol- 
diers were to murder 

Major Porter. The Government is not responsible for the tortious 
acts. 

Mr. Helm. That is what I understood Judge Crumpacker to say. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 99 

Major Porter. If you had a family of seven children and took a 
house, you would be responsible to the landlord for any damage that 
the seven children might do. In the same way, if the Government 
takes a building and use it in a normal way, it is responsible for it. 
In this case the Government is the tenant and is responsible to the 
landlord. If a man goes down the street and sets fire to another 
man's house, although a soldier of the United States, the United 
States is not responsible for his act. 

Mr. Helm. That is the way I understand it. 

The Chairman. The general rule is that the tenant agrees to return 
the property in as good condition as he receives it, ordinary wear and 
tear excepted — that is the rule of landlord and tenant. 

(To Major Porter.) We thank you very much. Major Porter. 
That is all this morning. Now, Colonel Hull, we will be pleased to 
hear you. It may be well for Mr. Fornes to know that Colonel Hull 
is judge-advocate of the Regular Army, Department of the East, and 
that he was the president of this board that considered these claims. 

Mr. FoRNES. Of this Commission. 

The Chairman. Of this Commission. 

Mr. Crumpacker. He testified the first day. 

The Chairman. Yes; Colonel Hull testified the first day. We 
are having his testimony printed and you will have a copy of it 
very soon. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. JOHN A. HULL— Continued. 

The Chairman. Now, Colonel Hull, I want to ask some questions 
based on this printed statement that j^ou handed me. I find that the 
gross award of the board under the report of November 15, 1906, and 
the report of March 5, 1907, is $363,430.19. Is that correct? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You say that under the supplementary instruc- 
tions of July 16, 1906, the board estimated the damage to the church 
property by war at $618,540, and by the insurgents at $834,374, mak- 
ing a total of $1,452,91-4. 

Colonel Hull. I would like to add one thing right there. This 
estimate was from the claims presented by the church. I have no 
doubt but what there are a number of other small claims not pre- 
sented by the church which would increase the total damage suffered 
by the church. 

The Chairman. Right at that point I have a question to ask. The 
church also claimed for loot of articles of cult and ornamentation 
$298,222.50— approximately $300,000. You say that the board, in 
its report of December 31, 1906, declined, on account of lack of 
information, to estimate the money value. Is that true ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On page 39 of the printed report of January 15, 
1906, they do, however, find that $40,000 would cover such loss ; that 
is, the loss of articles of cult, images, vestments, etc., caused by the 
American army. The other damage was, I suppose, by the insurgents. 

Colonel HuT^L. The insurgents, Filipinos themselves, Chinese, and 
other evil-disposed persons. 



100 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. You add in this statement that this item was not 
favorably considered by the Judge-i.\.dvocate-General, as the allow- 
ance of the same would establish a bad precedent. Then you say 
that the church also presented claims for moneys and supplies seized 
by the insui'gents and used by them in the prosecution of the war, 
cash $57,603.50 and supplies $8,500, making a total of $66,103.50. 
Why were not those claims investigated? 

Colonel Hull. Because we did not consider that any nation would 
consider the matter of the reimbursement of money and supplies 
turned over to the enemy to continue war against that nation, and 
then when the war had been successfully terminated say that the suc- 
cessful country should reimburse the other fellows. We therefore 
made no investigation of these claims, but simply reported them. It 
was impossible to make such an investigation. While I have no 
doubt that some of the money was seized, some of it was voluntarily 
turned over by priests hostile to us. 

The Chairman. Now, Colonel, I have here a statement made by 
Eight Rev. Frederick Z. Eooker, bishop of Jaro. Was he duly sworn 
as a witness by your board ? 

Colonel Hull. He was, sir. 

The Chairman. It is dated December 5, 1906, at Jaro, Iloilo. Is 
this typewritten statement the statement of the bishop ? 

Colonel Hull. I can identify it. [After examining the paper.] 
It is, sir. 

The Chairman. He was an American? 

Colonel Hull. He was. 

The Chairman. He is now dead? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. He died when ? 

Colonel Hull. He died since I left the islands. 

The Chairman. He was formerly stationed in Washington, was 
he not? 

Colonel Hull. He was probably Iniown to a great many of the 
members of the committee. He was the Doctor Rooker who was sec- 
retary of the papal delegation here. He was one of the best-known 
Washingtonians, a man who was invited everywhere on account of 
his wit and mental activity, and I think that it would not be out of 
place to call the attention of the committee, although joii may not 
desire to have it go in the record 

The Chairman. I want jou to state, so that it may go into the 
record, his mode of life there, his influence in the church, and how he 
died. 

Colonel Hull. I did not have the pleasure of knowing Doctor 
Hooker at the time that he was in this countrj'". I did meet him in 
the Philippines as the Bishop of Jaro. I have had a great many per- 
sonal talks with him, and I know that the man was bending every 
energy that he could to fix up the buildings and the cause of educa- 
tion in his diocese. I know that the man lived in conditions entirely 
different from that usually supposed bishops enjoy, on account of ex- 
pense, and he felt that he could better use the monej'^ for buildings 
and education than he could for living; and I know that the man 
went hungry, and I have no doubt that his death was probably 
hastened from the fact that he starved himself for the benefit of his 
diocese. I know that at times he did not have enough to eat. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 101 

The Chairman. Please tell the committee what he once said to you 
about a meal. 

Colonel Hull. I was there one time, and he told me that he was 
sorry that he could not have me to lunch that day because he had 
nothing but native food, and he would not care to offer that to an 
American ; he did not think it was fit to serve to a friend. He lived 
on fish, rice, and other things that are not palatable to one who has 
not been thoroughly educated to them. 

The Chairman. What was the condition of the buildings in his 
diocese ? 

olonel Hull. A good many of them were destroyed. 

Mr. Washburn. What was his diocese? 

Colonel Hull. Jaro, Iloilo. I have in mv hand exhibits 1562 and 
1564. 

The Chairman. T\Tiat are they ? 

Colonel Hull. Showing two views of the archbishop's palace at 
Jaro. I would like to show them to the committee. 

The Chairman. In ruins, is it ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Yes, show them to the members of the committee. 

Mr. Helm. This man was sent out by the Government? 

Colonel PIltll. He was appointed bishop at the solicitation of this 
Government that Americans be placed in charge of these dioceses. 

Mr. Helm. Did he receive any compensation from the Government ? 

Colonel HuT.L. None whatsoever. He was a bishop of the Cath- 
olic Church. 

(At this point Exhibits ISTos. 1562 and 1564, the same being pho- 
tographs of the bishop's palace at Jaro, Iloilo, were shown to the 
committee.) 

That building [referring to the palace at Jaro] was in somewhat 
dilapidated repair when we took possession of it, due to the insur- 
gents. The board allowed a rental of $50 a month for this building. 
A part of the building could be used, and was so used for offices — the 
best portion of it. We estimated that $50 a month would be suffi- 
cient com.pensation for this building. 

Mr. FoRNES. For w^hich building? 

Colonel Hull. For that building [indicating bishop's palace at 
Jaro represented in photographs]. 

The Chairman. Here is a part of the statement of Bishop Eooker, 
and I want to read it to you and get your judgment : 

Even if the Government were to grant the claims of this diocese just as they 
stand, the condition of the church here would still remain very much deterio- 
rated in comparison v^^ith what it was before the war. The sums asked for 
would be insufficient to put the property back to its original condition. These 
amounts are calculated on the basis of damages actually done. Since then, as 
time has passed, the deterioration to the damaged buildings has increased 
month by month. This subsequent deterioration has not been included in the 
claims which have been presented. The repairs to-day would be much more 
than at time of damage. For example: If the claim made for damages in the 
parish of Maasiu (case 369), amounting to ?=2,000, had been paid at the time 
they were made the amount would have restored the property to its original 
condition ; to-day that restoration would cost not less than ^10,000. 

Q. Recently you caused contractors to look over the bishop's palace at 
Jaro? — A. I have. 

Q. Did you have any estimate made as to cost of repairs? — A. I had four 
estimates made. 

Q. Will you state what they were? — ^A. The estimates ranged from 25,000 to 
30,000 pesos. 



102 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The Chairman. Do you remember how much you allowed for 
that? 

Colonel HiT.L. For Maasin? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Washburn. Is that going into the record? 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, I think that it would be well, unless 
there be objection, to put this statement of Bishop Kooker's into the 
record. It is his sworn testimony given before the board of which 
Colonel Hull was president. I would like to hear from the com- 
mittee on that point of whether I shall order it put into the record. 

Mr. Crumpacker. I think that it should go into the record. 

Mr. Washburn. Bishop Eooker is now dead? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Washburn. When did he die? 

Colonel Hull. Last year. We recommended at Maasin payment 
of rent for thirteen months at 50 pesos a month, and 250 pesos, mak- 
ing a total of 9,000 pesos. 

Mr. Washburn. That is, the claim was for 2,000 pesos and you 
allowed 9,000 pesos. What was the bishop's estimate? 

Colonel Hull. He said that 2,000 pesos would be a fair estimate. 

Mr. Graham. If it had been received at that time. 

The Chairman. That was the way the estimate was put in at the 
time, but the subsequent deterioration would amount to 10,000. 

Mr. Washburn. I would like at this juncture to ask a question of 
the chairman that perhaps might be entirely relevant, and that is, 
what is the attitude of the church toward us now, toward this Gov- 
ernment in regard to these claims? Do they feel impatient? Do they 
feel outraged? Do they feel that justice has been done them? Do 
they feel quiet? 

The Chairman. I have been chairman of this committee ever since 
it was organized, and I have never heard a word of discontent on 
this score. Have /ou heard anything of the kind. Colonel Hull ? 

Colonel Hull. They are anxious that payment should be made, 
naturally. We discussed in the printed report the attitude of the 
church toward this country. 

The Chairman. If they receive $363,000 will they feel satisfied, or 
will they feel aggrieved ? 

Colonel Hull. They will be very thankful to receive any amount 
of money, but they feel that, under present conditions, the award is 
inadequate. 

Mr. FoRNES. Does this include your whole report — j^our comments 
also? 

Colonel Hull. That includes the comments of the board. We 
have subsequent reports later, which are before the committee. 

The Chairman. Apropos to what you have just said. Colonel 
Hull, I again call the attention of the committee to what Bishop 
Hooker said. The claim was filed for damages in the parish of 
Maasin at 2,000 pesos, and the award was made as the colonel has 
just said. 

Mr. Washburn. At 900 pesos? 

The Chairman. Yes. Of course, they left, out all question of 
damage, etc., and the bishop said that they waited so long before they 
got &nj money — they have not jet received any — that wind and 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 103 

weather have deteriorated the property very materially, and the con- 
tractor says that it would now take 10,000 pesos to put the buildings 
in condition. The claim is for 2,000 pesos. 

Mr. Washburn. There is another question that I would like to ask. 
"V\Tien was this matter in condition to be acted upon by Congress? 
When were these investigations completed? 

The Chairman. The matter came before us last year. 

Colonel PlroLL. This is really the first year that you have had all of 
the documents in your possession. 

The Chairman. The subject came before us at the last session, but 
unfortunately the documents which you see on that table [indicating] 
were in the Philippines. They had been here, but were returned 
to the Philippines via Suez. We cabled for them, but they did not 
come until after Congress had adjourned. Moreover, we could not 
get the opinion of the supreme court of the islands touching the 
question of the title in time to get to work upon the claims. We ad- 
journed on the 4th of March, and some of these things did not get 
here until after we had gone home. 

Mr. Washburn. There is one question that I would like to ask 
Colonel Hull. If this $363,000 award was a fair one at the time it was 
made by the Commission, should anything be added to that because of 
deterioration of property between that time and the time that this 
matter is acted upon? 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Material is higher and labor is higher. There 
has been an advance in prices ever since that award was made. 

Colonel Hull. That award was based not on the value at the time 
it was made (1905-6) , but it was based on the value at the time of the 
occurrence (1898-1902). I probably have a more intimate knowledge 
of these claims than any other one man. I have gone over them all, 
and I know them intimately. I am confident that $500,000 would not 
be an excessive award at this time. 

Mr. Madison. Why do you say that? It seems to me that that is 
very important indeed. In the report you recommend the payment 
of $363,000, and you say now $500,000. Wliy is that? 

Colonel Hull. The principal reason for that is the deterioration 
that the church has suffered owing to nonpayment. 

The Chairman. Damages? 

Colonel Hull. That is the very reason ; the consequent damages to 
these buildings in a country such as the Philippines has been enor- 
mous on account of the weather. We mention that in our report, that 
every day's delay is a loss. 

I have two other reasons that I would like to mention on this. The 
second reason is the fact that I believe that every cent of the money 
that may be appropriated by Congress will be used exclusively in the 
rehabilitation and rebuilding of these buildings. I regard the 
church, outside of the Army, as the greatest single agency for law and 
order in the Philippine Islands to-day. All this money will go back 
and help the Filipino people toward prosperity. 

Another reason is the enormous losses, beyond calculation — it runs 
into the millions — that the Catholic Church has suffered, due to our 
occupation of the Philippine Islands. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Isn't there another reason — that it would cost so 
much more to rehabilitate those buildings, even more than last year, 



104 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

because of the increasing scale of the price of material and labor it 
would cost more to put those buildings back in condition ? 

Colonel Hull. Prices have increased wonderfully from the time 
that I first went to the Philippines in 1899, and I have no doubt that 
this has continued to go on. Five hundred thousand dollars to-day 
would not do any more than $360,000 would two years ago. It would 
do about the same. 

Mr. Washburn. If this question is to be settled equitably by the 
Government of the United States, the longer that Congress puts off 
dealing with the question the larger will be the sum to be paid. 

Colonel Hull. Most emphatically so. 

Mr. Washburn. Just one word more, and I am through. On this 
particular claim here that we have been discussing, I understand that 
Bishop Booker said that the damage done to that property was 2,000 
pesos. Am I right ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That claim was filed some years ago. 

Mr. Washburn. You allowed 900 pesos? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Washburn. But the bishop said when he wrote that report 
that the damage at that time was five times that amount of 2,000 
pesos. 

The Chairman. When he gave his sworn testimony? 

Mr. Washburn. In this one case we have the very best of testi- 
mony that the damage now is at least $4,500, for which the Commis- 
sion made an award of something over $900. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. No, $4,500. 

Mr. Washburn. They made an award of nine hundred. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Nine hundred pesos ? 

Mr. Washburn. Yes. 

Mr. Washburn. They made an award of $4,501, and the bishop's 
testimony is that the actual damage when he wrote that report was 
$5,000. 

Mr. Crumpacker, There are two other items that have some basis 
in equity that are not included in the report, and that ought not to 
be lost sight of. The board recommends the payment of $40,000 for 
the carrying away of sacred ornaments, images, vestments, etc. If 
we appropriated and carried away $40,000 worth of sacred orna- 
ments, vestments, etc., it would seem, as a matter of equity, that as a 
result of our occupation, we might pay for those. 

And then there is a church or convento that we occupied for some 
time, and when we vacated it we deliberately set fire to it and burned 
it down. Colonel Hull said that it was worth $220,000. It was 
burned by order of the American general in command. It was 
burned, perhaps, for the purpose of preventing the enemy from taking 
possession of it. At the same time, probably under the law of war we 
might not be strictly liable. Yet we deliberately seized and occupied 
that property, and then burned it to the gTound and left it. It would 
seem to me that we might allow a little on that score. I am with 
Colonel Hull. I do not believe that $500,000 would be excessive. It 
would not be compensatory from any standpoint, and it would not 
be excessive in view of all the aspects of the case, legal and equitable. 

The Chairman. Take up some other claim. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 105 

Colonel Hull. I can take Maasin. I have looked up the papers 
here, and I find a report by Capt. E. L. Butts, who says that the rental 
of the convent should be 500 pesos a year for about one year, and 
reports that the convent was improved and repaired by the army by 
fixing up the floors, interior, etc. I find another report by Capt. F. D. 
Wickham, whose valuation was about 50 pesos per month, and he 
also submitted three affidavits in regard to this demand. We recom- 
mended the payment of rental for thirteen months at 50 pesos per 
month. We raised the army officers' report. One was five hundred, 
and we made it six hundred. We looked up the records and found 
that the occupancy lasted thirteen months; that was the evidence 
before the board, and we recommended the payment of rental for that 
length of time. 

Mr. FoRNES. So that it was not a purely arbitrary cutting down of 
the estimates. 

Colonel Hull. I just looked this case up to show the action of the 
board, so as to show what we had before us when we made the esti- 
mates. 

Mr. Madison. I was just going to say that it looks as though the 
reasons here offered by Colonel Hull are purely political, as a matter 
of fact. 

Mr. Crumpaoker. Partly. 

Mr. Madison. Absolutely so. To my mind, they are the principal 
ones which should appeal to us. Now, we can not repudiate the find- 
ings of the board. There has not been suggested here, to my mind, 
as a lawyer, any legal basis for increasing this award. I am very 
much impressed with the fairness and the legal accuracy of the work 
that this board did with Colonel Hull at its head. It would seem 
to me, if this committee is going to justify an increase, that there 
should be some reason for so doing. 

Mr. Davis. That we could maintain on the floor of the House. 

Mr. Madison. Yes; that we could maintain on the floor of the 
House. If we have got to do it, we must find some reason, to my 
mind — some other reason besides that of a legal basis. We have got 
to put it on political grounds. The question in my mind is whether 
we can justify this increase. I do not see anything in these claims to 
justify, perhaps, the payment of the $40,000 that Judge Crumpacker 
suggests. We can not find any legal reason for it. The rest of it 
appeals to me very strongl}^, because of what this young officer says 
about the Catholic Church being a very great ally of this Government 
in the maintenance of law and order. But can we, in increasing these 
claims, give the Catholic Church an additional $100,000. If there is 
any way to do it, I should like to see it done. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Upon the proposition of legality and equity. 

Mr, Madison. Well, equity always follows law. 

Mr. Crumpacker. There are some things that have an equitable 
aspect that Congress recognizes. We paid the Methodist Church for 
occupying its property down here. How much was that ? 

The Chairman. About $200,000. 

Mr. Crumpacker. Yes; about $200,000, when it was admitted on 
the floor of the House that the occupancy perhaps was not worth 
$50,000. But it was a church, and its activities were practically 
paralyzed by the civil war, and it was in sense understood all the 



106 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

way through that the allowance of the $200,000 was to help the cause 
down there. 

Mr. Madison. Well, if that will go, it is enough for me. That is 
enough for me if it will go. 

Mr. Davis. I would like to express my views upon this proposition 
while we are in committee. 

When an action for damages arises between two individuals in 
consequence of a tort or otherwise, the amount of the damages is 
fixed by the court at the time of commission thereof. Delay in the 
award or the final payment has nothing to do with it except as to 
figuring and awarding the legal interest from the time that the 
damage occurred. Hence I believe that we would be in a bad posi- 
tion if we were to go before Congress and say that because of our 
delay in the payment of this award it should be raised other than by 
the amount of the legal interest on the amount that was then due 
upon the amount of the damages, because everyone is supposed to take 
his damaged property, the instant the damage is done, and go to work 
and repair the same. Of course in this instance the church would 
plead poverty, but that is not a legal excuse. Every man is held to be 
responsible for what he is supposed to do. 

The equitable part of this proposition appeals to me ver}^ strongly, 
because Colonel Hull has said that the board went into the legal 
aspects of it only and in very few instances considered the equitable 
part of it. 

Colonel Hull. You are mistaken about that, Mr. Davis, as you 
will see if you will read the end of the report. 

Mr. Washburn. Did you take into account 

Colonel Hull. We acted as a court of equity as far as we could, 
all the way through. 

Mr. Davis. This committee ought to fortify itself, then, with fur- 
ther equities that you took into consideration and not go before that 
body of lawyers aifd say that because of our delay in the settlement of 
the claims we are going to raise the amount. That is no legal excuse. 

Mr. Madison. You make a suggestion there that is very pertinent. 
We might allow legal interest from the date of the award, but not 
jack the amount up from $363,000 to $500,000 because of the delay. 

The Chairman. Let me say a word right here before we proceed. 
All this discussion would properly come in executive session of the 
committee after we have finished hearing the testimony. I think that 
we will expedite matters if we defer the discussion as to the lawful 
and equitable damages until we do go into executive session and now 
permit the Colonel to tell us what they did. 

Mr. FoRNES. I second that. Let us get all the information that we 
can, and then we will take up the matter in the committee. 

Colonel Hull. I want to refer to the testimony of the Secretary 
of War. Under the first class mentioned in his letter, some of the 
members might think that they amounted to a great deal. The 
amount of the award was $18,245. Under class 2, in the Secretary's 
letter which he read to you the other day 

The Chairman. Please specify what this particular class is. 

Colonel Hull. The Archbishop's palace and the cathedral. 

Under class 2, mentioned in my letter to the Secretary, on which 
his letter was based, there was an erroneous amount of the claim of 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 107 

the Paco church of 150,000 pesos. In regard to the occupancy of 
these buildings, in almost every case the buildings were in the hands 
of the insurgents; they were driven out and our occupation immedi- 
ately followed, as mentioned in the report, exclusively as fortifica- 
tions. I won't say exclusively, but frequently as fortifications. They 
fired therefrom upon our troops as they advanced. 

The question of wanton damage has played quite an important part 
in the discussions here in the committee. There has evidently been 
a misunderstanding on the part of some of the committee as to the 
actual facts. The wanton damage refers mainly to these articles of 
loot, also to fire, but where partitions were taken down, where walls 
were scratched, where nail holes were made, and where there was the 
usual waste during the occupancy of the buildings by the soldiers, 
such as is liable to be committed by soldiers, such was not considered 
as wanton and was duly considered. 

The Chairman. But not for loot. 

Colonel Hull. That was against orders. There never has been an 
army in the history of mankind that behaved itself with more pro- 
priety than did our army in the Philippines. The comparison be- 
tween the army in the Philippines and the allied armies in China was 
most marked. The United States has nothing to apologize for in this 
regard. 

Mr. Davis. They did not imitate Napoleon in Italy. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Some of the boys in China did. You would think 
so if you saw the stream of loot that came into San Francisco after 
the expedition in China. 

Colonel Hull. But even then the American forces were much bet- 
ter than the other armies. I hope that I have made myself plain as to 
what the Board rejected and what it put in. Of course we did reject 
burnings and we did reject loot, except as mentioned in the report. 

The Chairman. Have you any other claims that you might go 
through in a hurried way, in order to show the committee how you 
acted upon them, and to show what was taken into consideration ? 

Mr. Madison. Do you know what is the rate of legal interest in the 
Philippine Islands? 

Colonel Hull. During this period it was about 8 per cent, and 
most of these things took place in 1899 to 1900. A few of them ex- 
tended up as far as 1902. 

Mr. Garrett. Is that the rate of the Spanish-Filipino Bank or the 
usual rate? 

Colonel Hull. The usual rate on A No. 1 commercial paper. Of 
course, the rates of the usurers run away up to the ceiling. 

The Chairman. The usurers' rates run up as high as 80 per cent, 
all the way from 20. One went even as high as 110 per cent. 

Colonel Hull. I can take up the case of Mexico, Pampanga. Here 
is the report on that case [indicating]. 

The Chairman. What is the number of that claim in the printed 
pamphlet? Do you remember? 

Colonel Hull. It is Exhibit No. 612. It is case No. 242. Here is 
a claim for 121,700.24 pesos for rental and damages to church and 
convent. 

The Chairman. Let us get that in dollars. It would be about 
$62,000. 



108 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Mr. FoKNES. And you allowed $1,100. 

Colonel Hull. Here is a long claim which I will not take time to 
read, as a great part of it was for bricks and lumber. According to 
the claim the property was completely surrounded by Imnber and 
bricks. Here is a report by an officer of the army whose name is 
P. J. Hennessey, second lieutenant of the Fifth Cavalry. I should 
judge from his name that he is a Catholic. Here is his full report 
of that case, and besides that the Board took testimony. The priest 
was punished by a military commission for aiding the insurgents. 
The board felt by the time that they got through with that case 
that the claim of the church in this instance was not substantiated. 
We found that a lot of these bricks had been used by the Spanish 
troops in the insurrection of 1896 in building trenches against the 
insurgents, and that they had also been used by the insurgents in 
building trenches against us, and that the people used the lumber. 
That claim was cut down to what we thought was a reasonable basis. 
On the other hand, at the same time we had that priest before us— 
his testimony appears farther on — there was a priest from a neigh- 
boring place, San Fernando, Pampanga. When that priest got 
through testifying, there was not a member of the Commission who 
did not believe him. 

I have here a number of pictures. Here is Exhibit No. 1554, a 
very large building which we used as a hospital. 

The Chairman. Just pass it around the committee, please. 

Colonel Hull. There was a large hospital located at Nueva Ca- 
ceres. Here is a large school which was used b}^ the troops [indi- 
cating]. Here is a cathedral, Exhibit No. 1555 [indicating], at 
Nueva Caceres. The cathedral at Manila is larger. I have here a 
photograph of a convento in San Fernando (Exhibit No. 1578) 
which was injured by shells from the United States troops. Nothing 
was allowed for such damages, it being held that the destruction was 
an act of war. Here is Exhibit No. 1559, the Bishop's Palace at 
Vigan. This was also used by the troops. Here is a church at Pilar, 
Sorsogon (Exhibit No. 1576). The evidence showed that it had been 
burned three times by the insurgents. 

(The photographs were exhibited to the committee.) 

Mr. FoRNES. Are those pictures a part of the record? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir, I am just identifying them. No. 1568 is 
a church at Basey, Samar. 

The Chairman. Let me suggest that I be permitted to have it pub- 
lished as a part of the report of these proceedings. 

Mr. Garrett. I am in favor of that. 

Colonel Hull. Exhibits Nos. 1565, 1566, and 1567 are pictures of a 
church and convento that were destroyed by the American troops as 
an act of war. They were situated at Hilongos, Leyte, looking out 
upon the Mindanao Sea. They were used as fortifications by the 
Spanish people. No. 1560 is a photograph of a girls' school at Vigan, 
which was used as a hospital. 

Mr. Garrett. I move that the chairman of the committee be re- 
quested to select and put into the hearings the more important of 
these pictures. 

The Chairman. That would enable the House to see the character 
of the buildings. 

(The question being put, the motion carried.) 



I 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 109 

Colonel Hull. There is another thing that I would like to say. I 
notice that in the correspondence read by the Secretary that the Gov- 
ernment reserved the right to contest these claims on the ground that 
the priests in charge of the parish had taken an active part in the 
insurrection. The question was not looked into by the board as to 
whether an award should in fact be made or not. You will remem- 
ber his reading it. We investigated to see whether the priest would 
be one inclined to put in a hostile or exorbitant claim, or whether he 
was liable to put in a reasonable claim. 

The Chairman. We have reached the hour of adjournment. There 
are some other things that the members of the committee desire to 
question the Colonel about, and I will therefore call another meeting 
of the committee for to-morrow morning at 10.30 o'clock. 

(At this point the committee accordingly adjourned, at 11.55 a. m., 
until to-morrow, Wednesday, January 22, 1908, at 10.30 a. m.) 



Committee on Insular Afpairs, 

House of REPRESENTATn=^ES, 
Wednesday^ January 22, 1908. 
The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry Allen Cooper, 
chairman, presiding. 

The Chairman. My purpose this morning is to go over as many 
of these claims as possible, and to have Colonel Hull show us just 
how the board acted upon them. 

STATEMENT OF COL. JOHN A. HULL, U. S. ARMY— Continued. 

Colonel Hull. I suggest that in order to make it a little fairer, 
that each individual member of 'the committee present select at 
random such cases as they may desire to see. 

The Chairman. Very well. Mr. Graham, do you wish to select a 
case ? What we desire to get at is as to what the board did, and also 
as to the merits of the claims. 

Mr. Graham. I will ask for No. 350, Vigan. 

Colonel Hull. All of the Yigan papers are not here, but I have 
most of them, 

Mr. Graham. It is for 20,885 pesos. 

Colonel Hull. That was an exceedingly large claim, and a very 
important one, and it was given careful consideration by the board. 
There is one of the items in this claim, namely, the damages to the 
library and furniture, the semenario or boys' school, which is almost 
the only claim where the board and the church authorities arrived 
at directly opposite conclusions. 

The Chairman. That is the boys' school? 

Colonel Hull. The boys' school. There is a girls' school there 
also. There is a seminary, a girls' school, and bishop's palace. 

The Chairman. When you speak of the boys' school you mean 
the seminary? 

Colonel Hull. I mean the seminary. This item was for a large 
amount of books and furniture. The bishop was confident of the 
justice of the claim. There have been five members of the board 



110 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

who have investigated that claim, and we have all held that the 
claim was not well founded. The papers have been multitudinous. 
Every officer who has been to Vigan has furnished his statement. 
The board feels that the testimony of Major Dodd, who is now lieu- 
tenant-colonel and chief of staff at Chicago, is conclusive, and that 
the testimony furnished by the church fails to substantiate the claim. 

Mr. Olmsted. What particular claim ? I see you recommend some 
things here. 

Colonel Hull. That was for the damages. 

Mr. Olmsted. Damages to the palace? 

Colonel Hull. Damages to the boys' school. The report is very 
full and voluminous on that. Major Dodd's report consists of thir- 
teen pages, with two exhibits. 

The Chairman. Is that the report which you have in your hand? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. It is entirely too long to read, but if any- 
one is interested they can go into it. 

The Chairman. Major Dodd is a United States Army officer? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. This exhibit [indicating] is Exhibit No. 
904 of the exhibits attached to the report of the board, in addition. 

Mr. Olmsted. I understand, of course, that all of the exhibits 
which you have would make too much of a record for publication 
of the proceedings of this hearing, but would it not strike you as a 
good idea, Colonel, to have, for instance, that exhibit which you hold 
in your hand, which explains the method and how the recommenda- 
tions in claim No. 350 were arrived at, printed in the record? 

Colonel Hull. This does not show how we arrived at our conclu- 
sions; it only shows why we rejected the largest item of this claim. 

Mr. Olmsted. It covers that one item. 

Colonel Hull. It shows why we rejected that one item, the largest 
one. 

Mr. Olmsted. I suggest that, without stopping to read it, we in- 
sert it in the record. 

The Chairman. Is that the sense of the committee? If so, I will 
order that it go into the record. 

United States Army Recruiting Station, 

1316 Filbert Street, 
PMladelpMa, Pa., January IS, 1905. 
Maj. T. W. Jones, 

Thirteenth V. S. Cavalry, in charge of investigation of claims, 

Philippine Division, Manila, P. I. 
(Through military channels.) 
Sir : In compliance with request contained in your letter of November 4, 
and forwarded me by indorsement of December 14, 1904, from the office of The 
Military Secretary (paper herewith returned), I have the honor to submit the 
following statement i-egarding a certain claim referred to in your communi- 
cation. 

I was not with the first United States troops to enter Vigan ; as, in fact, I 
personally arrived there in the latter part of December (about the 2Sth, I think), 
1899, while my troop arrived on or about the 2d of January, 1900. Aside from 
repeated absences, while actively engaged in the field, I was absent sick from 
some time in November, 1900, until some time in March, 1901, finally leaving 
the place for the United States the latter part of June. 1901. My statement, 
therefore, will cover more particularly what I know of conditions and trans- 
actions in the premises during the time of my presence, but in order to throw 
additional light on the subject I shall refer, as the dift'ereut articles for which 
claim is made are dealt with in detail, to facts known to Frank G. Gehman, 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. Ill 

now a private in the general serivce, but who was a sergeant in my troop (F, 
Third Cavalry) when it first went to Yigan, and who was its first sergeant 
when it left, some time in February or March, 1902, and supplement my remarks 
with the substance of relevant statements recently made by him to me. 

When I first arrived at Vigan there were two troops of the Third Cavalry 
quartered in the colegio, or seminary building proper, while some of the other 
so-called public or chucli buildings, except the church proper, were occupied 
by other troops and used for other United States public purposes, this use 
being made necessary by the hostile condition of the country. 

Upon the arrival of my troop it was also quartered in the colegio, along 
with the other two troops mentioned, and this building remained the troops' 
permanent quarters, except when in the field, up to the time that I turned it 
over to my successor and left Vigan, and, I understand, until it left the place 
for the United States some time in the winter or spring of 1902. Some 
time after my troop had been quartered in the building one of the troops first 
quartered there was removed, leaving the building to the remaining and my 
own troop, the space being divided betvA^een the two organizations, that por- 
tion formerly occupied by the vacating troops falling to mine. I am informed 
that the remaining troops, as well as F troop, was quartered in the building 
up to the time the regiment left. 

When my troop entered the building and during its occupancy there was 
property, as articles of furniture, etc., scattered through and in the vicinity 
of it, some of which could be used, while some was of no use whatever. What 
this property consisted of, in its entirety, I do not know, as I know of no inven- 
tory being taken of it, and I considered that I was responsible and custodian 
of it only so far as it was my duty to see that that which was in my portion 
.of the building was not subjected to wanton destruction and vandalism; and, 
during my stay that duty was strictly performed, the property, under stringent 
orders, being well cared for and in no way suffering damage. I am informed 
that after my departure the same obtained and that my former standing 
orders remained in force to the time of the troop's departure. 

As already stated, I did not know and can not recall just what property 
was in the building; but in reading over the list for which claim has been 
made I recognize many articles which I know were in the building, and in 
good condition, when I left ; articles, the subsequent, or at least more recent, 
history of which Gehman has been able to furnish me. 

For convenience I shall deal with the classes of articles in detail, adding 
such remarks as will cover what I know in each case. 

First. Library: Reported to have contained 6,000 volumes, more or less, 
valued at $6,300, with the claim that only about 250 were recovered-. 

Remarks: When my troop first entered the seminary building it was found 
that a large number of books, the appearance of which indicated that they 
formed part of a school or college library, were scattered, not only throughout 
the building itself, but in the yard, court, and plaza, while the bulk was stored 
in one or two rooms, the doors and windows of which were in no way secured, 
these rooms being in that portion of the building formerly occupied by the 
troop first to vacate. Later I made details from my troop, caused the books 
to be collected wherever found, stored in a suitable room, and personally super- 
A'ised the proper securing of the doors and windows of that room, and made 
public positive orders that under no consideration would that room be opened 
or entered except on the order of the district or post commander. Verbal 
report of what I had done was made to the district commander, who approved 
of my action and sustained me in the order I had issued, making it applicable 
not only to men of my own troop, but to all others, and in consequence thereof 
proper notice was posted on the door. 

The gathering of these books together from all sorts of places, moving them 
to a safe place, securely storing them and taking strict means to prevent their 
being molested, all entailing extra work, was entirely gratuitous, being done 
from a sense of duty that requires the prevention of wanton waste and destruc- 
tion of that which was of value to others, and not from anj" sense of accounta- 
bility for or custody of the property. 

The order forbidding the opening and entering of the " book room " was not 
disobeyed during my presence, and I believe was obeyed during my absence. 
Gehman assures me that it was. 

On the 3d of May, 1901, having been promoted out of, but still on temporary 
duty with, the regiment (Third Cavalry) I received a memorandum order, copy 

25765—08 S 



112 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

of which is hereto attached marlied "A," directing me to turn over to, and allow 
the remoyal of the books in question by, a Father Laminage, whom I under- 
stood to be a friar. Note was made of the character and condition of the books. 
As the list indicates, they were generally of au ecclesiastical character, while 
their condition was generally good — as good as the books of an old library usu- 
ally are, except some that had been gathered up from different places and had 
been misused, and even many of them were in a fair, serviceable condition, while 
some were torn and mutilated. These latter were, as a rule, small and less 
valuable volumes, while the larger ones remained in good condition and intact. 

The order authorizing the removal of the books was brought to me by Father 
Laminage, who was accompanied by two other clerical individuals, 'whom I 
understood were also friars; and in the presence of these persons, or at least one 
of them, the books were counted and removed, a proper representative of the 
Government being also present. 

Although, as stated, not directly accountable for the books, yet anticipating 
that the future would develop just such a claim as this, and precisely the action 
that the claim indicates, after a due and satisfactory veriflcation had been 
made I took and have retained Father Laminage's receipt, copy of which is 
herewith inclosed marked " B." The original of this receipt is in my possession 
and will be forwarded if desired. It is thought, however, the inclosed official 
copy will answer the purpose. 

By way of explanation regarding the wording of the receipt, it may be said 
that by " pamphlet " is to be understood paper-bound or covered books, some 
being very large volumes, in contradistinction to those more substantially 
bound, and not small pamphlets as the term is ordinarily used with us, so that 
the total number of books in the bibliothecal sense was 2,043 (parts of badly 
mutilated ones not being counted), instead of the 250 claimed. These books, 
when turned over to Father Laminage, were nearly all ])acked in l)ookcases or 
movable shelves, and, I believe, the cases were about all filled. At any rate 
cases to hold even approximately 0,000 voliunes, or half that number, were not 
in the building, and fully the number of cases, payment for which claim is made 
(see remarks under eighth subject), were filled. 

Undoubtedly some of the books of this library were destroyed, mutilated, lost, 
or carried away ; but, judging from what I knew, I am firmly of the opinion 
that the claim to a loss of 6,000 volumes, or that 6,000 volumes, or near that 
number, were in the library, is as false and preposterous as the one made to 
the effect that but 250 volumes were recovered by the church authorities. This 
opinion is strengthened by a conversation I had with Father Laminage after 
the books had been removed and at the time he gave me the receipt. I explained 
to him the condition in which the books were found and the means taken to 
gather and secure them; whereupon he expressed great gratitude and profound 
thanks. He stated that, though there was some loss, he was satisfied that it was 
comparatively small — a very small percentage, much less than he expected — • 
and that lie was satisfied that what loss had occurred was due to the vandalism 
of the insurrectos, and most effusively expressed thanks to the Americanos for 
the care they had taken of the church property, casually refei'ring to the fact 
that the church proper had been entered and molested by the insurrectos only. 
The Father's two confreres heartily corroborated his opinions and expressed 
them as their own. 

Ex-Sergeant Gehman states that he is fully cognizant of the condition of the 
books when the troop entered the building; the fact of their being collected by 
my oi"der and properly secured ; that stringent orders were given forbidding 
the opening of the room in which they were stored ; that these orders were 
obeyed, and that the books were removed by representatives of the church. 

I have gone into this portion of the subject with what may seem unnecessary 
minuteness, but the flagrant falsity of this, the most important portion of the 
entire claim, being well established suggests the possibility of throwing light 
upon and establishing the spuriousness of other portions, known or believeil to 
be groundless, yet whereof no written and incontrovertible proof can be pro- 
duced, as in this case. All circumstances and conversation connected with 
this library I vividly and distinctly recall. 

Second. Three large narra bedsteads. 

Remarks: These were in the building, in good condition, when I left. Ex- 
Sergeant Gehman informs me that they were there when the troop vacated and 
is able to specify the location of each bed. When tlie library was removed I 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 113 

called the attention of Father Lamiuage to the fact that they were in the build- 
ing, just as when the troops entered, and advised their removal in case the build- 
ing was not to be rehabilitated at an early date. He admitted that they were 
" all right ;" that they were safer there than anywhere else, but that they prob- 
ably would be removed later. 

Third. Forty-three (43) iron bedsteads. 

Remarks: Do not recall ever seeing any in the building. Gehman says pos- 
itively that there were none. The troops slept on the floor until the Quarter- 
master was able to have made and provide bamboo bunks. 

Fourth. T'wenty-four (2^) narra loood escritoires. 

Remarks: There was a number of these articles, small school desks, of a 
very plain and cheap grade, scattered through the building when I left. Geh- 
man assures me that he saw them all collected and removed by the parish 
priest long before the troop left. 

Fifth. One {!) narra minster escritoire ; one {!) escritoire pupitre. 

Remarks: When I left, these articles, or what I supposed were the ones 
referred to, were in the room formerly used as a chapel. Gehman informs me 
that when it became necessary to use this room for other purposes the articles 
were partitioned ,ofC and made secure at one end of the room and were there, 
in as good condition as when found, when the troop left. 

Sixth. Tables: 

I. One (1) large round table, one meter radius, etc. 

Remarks: I saw no such table in the building during my occupancy. Geh- 
man says there was none. 

II. One {!) quadrilong table * * * one meter wide, etc. 
Remarks: Saw no such table as this. Gehman says there was noner 

III. Tables assorted, aggregating eight (1) in number. 

Remarks: There was a number of cheap, plain, ordinary, tables, of different 
tinds, in the building, but I do not recall the number. They were there when I 
|eft and, Gehman says, were in the building, in good condition, when the troop 
Vacated. These tables were very ordinary and cheap. 

Seventh. Assorted benches, aggregating thirty-seven {31). 

Remarks: There was a number of cheap, plain, ordinary benches in the 
building when I lesft, the exact number and kind of which I do not know. Geh- 
'lan says they were there when the troop left. There were probably more 
jenches left by the troop than were originally in the building. 

Eighth, Book shelves, aggregating siw (6). 

Remarks: These book shelves -were turned over with, and removed at the 
fame time as the library. I saw them taken from the building, under the 
supervision of Father Laminage and his assistants. 

These were the shelves and cases purporting to have contained 6,000 volumes, 
more or less, but which were about filled with 2,043 volumes. I know of no 
Jther book shelves or cases. Gehman is cognizant of the facts in the case. 

Ninth. Wardrobes, aggregating three (,?). 

Remarks: I recall seeing a number of wardrobes in the building, were there 
T^hen I left, do not recall the number. Gehman says they were there when the 
troop left. One left in orderly room. 

Tenth. Blackboards, aggregating fifty-one {5"!). 

Remarks: Do not recall seeing any, neither does Gehman. 

Eleventh. Chairs, aggregating twenty-eight {28). 

Remarks: There was a number of chairs, assorted, scattered through the 

Hiilding, don't know how many. As in case of the bedstead, and at the same 

lime, I called Father Laminage's attention to, and pointed out a number of 

chairs, which I presumed were for ministerial purposes, and which seemed to 

le to be of some value. Attention was called to the fact that the chairs were 

lin good condition, had been kept where they could not be used by the troop 

land removal advised. Again the reply was that they were safe where they 

[were but that they would probably be removed later. 

Gehman assures me that all of the chairs were collected and removed by the 
[parish priest at the same time as were the school desks. 

Tioelfth. One {!) clock. 

Remarks: This was standing in the hallway at the head of the stairs — was 
[there when the troop left. It did not rmi and was not used. It is probably 
I still there or somewhere in the building. 

Thirteen. Lamps, aggregating seven (7), and two {2) globes. 



114 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Remarks: I think some unserviceable lamps were around the building; am 
not positive. Gehmau says there were none. 

Fourteenth. Writing desks, numhering two (2). 

Remarks: I know that I pointed out at least one of these desks to Father 
Laminage, and I think two of them. They were there when I left. Gehman 
says when the troop left, one in the orderly and one in the captain's room. 

Fifteenth. Kitchen, dining room, etc. 

Remarks: Neither Gehman nor myself ever saw any of these articles. My 
troop used their field cooking outfit and individual mess kits until the quarter- 
master was able to provide regular garrison kits. 

Sixteenth. Fruit trees. 

Remarks: Never heard of or saw any fruit trees belonging to the building; 
neither did Gehman. 

The foregoing covers what I now recall as being relevant to the case, my 
memory being greatly refreshed by reference to the list of property furnished 
me, and for which claim is made. 

Although, as already stated, I was not with the first troops to enter Vigan, 
yet, knowing what I do of the conditions there existing, I can to no extent 
whatever credit the claim to the effect that the colegio was refitted or in any 
way rehabilitated between the time of the departure of the insurrecto and 
the arrival of the United States troops, and am firmly of the belief that the 
statement that such was he case in devoid of even a scintilla or veneering of 
truth, and not intended to be taken seriously. 

It is a well-known fact that, for weeks, while the raid " around Tarlac," and 
northward through the northern provinces of Luzon, was in progress, the 
United States troops were practically and continually on the heels of the insur- 
recto forces, the latter being driven from town to town and from one position 
to another; that in almost all cases these towns were practically abandoned 
by their inhabitants, who either fled, through fear, or were forced to accom- 
pany the insurrectos; that these same insurrectos in no way respected the 
rights of the regular inhabitants, but left in their wake a trail of devastation, 
by way of looted houses and churches and wanton waste and destruction of 
property of every description ; that owing to the valuable, portable fixtures 
and treasure they were supposed to contain, taken with the better antagonistic 
sentiment for the friars, the churches, and church buildings, especially those 
with which the friars were closely identified, as was the case with the colegio 
and other church buildings at Yigau, suffered great deprivations. Few, if 
any, of the church official representatives remained in those vacated towns. 
1 recall, as an instance in question, that while camping in a large town a 
member of my troop unearthed, at a point near where my horses were picketed, 
some valuable church fixtures, as lamps, candelabra, etc. (as I recall them), 
supposed to be of silver. In the entire town I was unable to find a representa- 
tive of the church to receive the property, and finally was obliged to turn it 
over to the presidente, taking his receipt for the same, with promise that it 
would be restored to the church as soon as possible. 

Again, on my arrival at Vigan I found the room which had been used as a 
chapel entirely dismantled, even to the extent of the floor being torn up. I was 
assured, not by Americans, but by Spaniards and friendly Filipinos, that this 
was the work of the insurrectos, and that they tore up the floor in search 
for treasure and valuable church fixtures supposed to be hidden there or 
thereabouts. 

Taking everything into consideration, I am of the opinion that, unless con- 
ditions surrounding the property in question underwent the most remarkable 
change subsequent to June 2S, 1902 (and I don't believe they did), any just 
claim in the premises should be in favor of the Government ; for it would 
seem that this property, instead of being injured, destroyed, or confiscated, 
was cared for and restored to the church authorities by the ti'oops — a fact 
voluntarily, most openly, and gratefully acknowledged to me by Fr. Laminage 
on or about May 5, 1901, as already cited. 

I am free to admit that, in the light of facts, it seems not only astonishing, 
but incredible, that a claim of the scope and character of this should be urged, 
and that presumably from a source from which honesty and fair dealing might 
reasonably be expected. Loss of memory on the part of the claimants, if they 
are the personages with whom I had to deal, with hope or expectation that 
others should be similarly afflicted, seems to be the most generous explanation. 

As not exactly relevant to the subject proper, yet bearing on the subject of 
claims which may arise, I venture to volunteer the information that the ques- 
tion of rentals of buildings, used by the government in Vigan, was acted upon 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 115 

and adjusted iu the spring or summer of 1901 by a board of officers, of which. 
Maj. (now Col.) E. Z. Stever was president and I was a member. I do not 
recall the entire results of the board's work, but a certain percentage of the 
value of each building was allowed as rental. It is now my impression that 
the proceedings and recommendations of the board were acted upon by the 
district commander. 

The matter is mentioned only in order that in case it should come up it may 
be known that the matter was at one time adjusted. 

Necessary papers and confirmatory information not being at once available 
has occasioned some delay in the rendition of this report. 

Any further information in my possession which may have escaped me in 
this paper I shall be delighted to furnish. 

I am, Major, very respectfully, Geo. A. Dodd, 

Lieutenant- Colonel Tenth Cavalry. 



A. 

Major Dodd : Gen. Bell has given permission to Father Laminage to take the 
library books which are in your troop quarters. 

He desires you to turn them over to him and take note of the books and their 
condition. 

Very respectfully, John Green Ballance. 

Vigan, May 3rd. 

A true copy. 

J. W. Pope, 

Lt. Col. d Dep. Q. M. Genl, U. 8. Army. 



Vigan, Luzon, P. I., May 4th, 1901. 
Received of Major Dodd 1,843 books and 200 pamphlets, church property. 

Fe. F. Laminage. 
A true copy. 

Lt. Col. & Dep. Q. M. Genl., V. S. Army. 

Colonel Hull. In addition to that I have seen a letter written by 
the administrator of this diocese, in 1901, to the commanding general 
of the Department of the Philippines, thanking him for the great 
care which the United States troops had taken of the church prop- 
erty at Vigan. Major Dodd's report says that the minute he went 
in there he took every piece of property that he could find, all of 
the library, and the loose pieces of furniture, such as would not be 
useful to the troops and which would be liable to injury or to be 
stolen, and put them under lock and key. He treated this property 
with even almost more care than an officer ordinarily would United 
States property, yet two years afterwards this claim is presented for 
carrying away of 6,000 books, or something of that kind. This is one 
claim where the board and the church authorities arrived at directly 
opposite conclusions as to the facts. 

The Chairman. The claim was for 67,500 pesos. 

Colonel Hull. As I have just stated, some of the exhibits are miss- 
ing. The original claim is missing from these papers now. 

The Chairman. And you awarded 20,000 pesos. In other words, 
you cut it down over two-thirds. 



116 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Mr. Olmsted. How much did they claim on this one item for 
damages to the seminary ? 

Colonel Hull. In the neighborhood of $6,300 gold for the library. 

Mr. Olmsted. Dollars or pesos ? 

Colonel Hull. Dollars. That is the one big item. 

Mr. Olmsted. And that you disallowed entirely ? 

Colonel Hull. We disallowed it entirely, although there was 
doubtless a small amount of loss. 

Mr. Olmsted. This claim was made two years after our people had 
yacatecl the premises? 

Colonel Hull. Virtually so. 

Mr. Olmsted. Was there any e%ddence showing whether any books 
had been removed between the time of our vacating the i3remises 
and the making of the claim ? 

Colonel Hull. The books that were then extant were turned over 
to the church authorities prior to our vacation and a receipt taken 
therefor. 

The Chairman. At this point in the Colonel's testimony we will 
insert what we find on page 29 of the report of the board, concerning 
claim No. 350, so as to make the record show just what the award 
was in items: 

No. 350. Vigan, Ilocos Sur. Claim for rent and damage to palace, seminary, 
girls' school, and corral, amounting to ?=67,500.80. 

We recommend payment as follows : Palace, rent, twenty months, at ?175 
per month, ?=3,500; palace, damages, f*=l,200; seminary, i*ent, thirty-seven 
months, at ?=200 per month, ?=7,400; seminary (no damages) ; girls' school, 
rent, thirty-seven mouths, at ?175, ^6,475 ; girls' school, damages, ?=1,200 ; 
corral, rent of grounds, thirty-seven months, at ?=30, 'Pl.llO ; total, ^=20,885. 

(Exhibits 895-951.) 

Colonel Hull. I am sorry that in the documents here I have not 
been able to find all of the Vigan papers, but I can explain also 
where there was a wide divergence. For instance, in the case of 
this building [indicating photograph] this is a picture of the semi- 
nary [photograph exhibited to the committee] there was a wide dif- 
ference of opinion as to the rental value. We had a report from an 
Army officer as to what he considered the value of the premises. We 
had the claims of the church, and I think — I am speaking from 
memory — that the report of the board was somewhere between the 
claim of the church and the report of the Army officer. If you will 
look at the item in the report of the board, you will see what we 
allowed for the rental of the seminar3^ 

The Chairman. That is, $100 per month for the building, the 
picture of which you have in your hands. Now, how much did you 
allow for the bishop's palace? 

Mr. Graham. One hundred and seventy-five pesos a month. 

Colonel Hull. Here is a picture of that building. Since the award 
was made I have been 

Mr. FoRNES. May I ask a question at this point? What did you 
estimate the cost of that building? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, I could not give that estimate now. 

Mr. FoRNES. A couple of hundred thousand dollars? 

Colonel Hull. I would not care to say. 

Mr. Olmsted. Of what is this bishop's palace constructed, stone ? 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IF PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 117 

Colonel HijLL. It is eAadently of stone. Since we made this award 
the board took occasion to go to Vigan, and we went over these build- 
ings very carefully to see whether we had been wrong or right in 
our original conclusions. I talked to Colonel Brodie about it, and 
we saw no reason for changing our recommendations. We thought 
that what Ave allowed there Avas proper, according to our best judg- 
ment. The other building 

Mr. Graham. The girls' school was 175 pesos a month. Con- 
nected Avith the bishop's palace there seem to be extensive grounds. 
Did you use them also? 

Colonel Hull, We used the grounds somewhat. The grounds ex- 
tended back and were very extensive. They extended back to the 
river, running along back of the bishop's palace and back of the 
girls' school. 

The Chairman. We Avill put in the record at this point the amount 
of this reduction, which Avas, in dollars, from $38,750.40 to $10,442.50. 

Colonel Hull. If I had all of the exhibits here, Avith the reports of 
the officers and the original claims of the church, I could make a 
more complete statement. 

The Chairman. Does that bundle of papers on the table all relate 
to this claim? 

Colonel Hull. The papers all relate to this claim, but the original 
claim and the original reports of the surA^^eying officers of these build- 
ings I find are missing from the papers that I have here. 

The Chairman. It is your present judgment that this reduction 
of $28,000 from the original claim Avas just and that the aAvard should 
stand ? 

Colonel Hull. I think so. 

The Chairman. Does any other member of the committee wish 
to ask about any particular claim? 

Mr. Davis. Why not take No. 351 there ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Garrett desires to ask a question. 

Mr. Garrett (to Colonel Hull). Your method of procedure and 
your mental processes, if I may put it that Avay, Avere the same in 
regard to all these claims ? 

Colonel Hull. Virtually so. On these larger claims Ave worked as 
a body, but on the smaller ones we very often divided them out, and 
each member of the board would take an individual claim and pre- 
pare it for submission to the full board. 

Mr. Garrett. Who would find the facts? 

Colonel Hull. The board Avould find the facts. 

The Chairman. Where you took oral testimony, Avere the Avitnesses 
sworn ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. We would see what we could find. Mr. 
Brodie Avould take a case, and Mr. Moore would take a case, but in 
these larger claims the whole board acted together as a body. The 
original preliminary investigation was made by the individual mem- 
bers of the board. 

The Chairman. That is, when you took testimony you acted as a 
body. 

Colonel Hull. All of the testimony Avas taken by the board as a 
body. 



118 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPIaSTE ISLAISTDS. 

Mr, Garrett. I would like to suggest that Colonel Hull take some 
case — I do not care which one — and present the exhibits here in such 
a manner that one case may be completely published here. 

Mr. Olmsted. A case that would be typical of most of the other 
cases. 

Mr. Garrett. Typical of the general run of the cases. Of course, 
I think that, perhaps, he might select the case because no one else 
could select it as well. 

Colonel Hull. I do not think that I could select a case typical 
of all. 

Mr. Davis. Let us have No. 351. 

Colonel Hull. What is the exhibit numbers? 

Mr. Davis. Nos. 952 and 955. This seems to be a claim for rent 
and damages to church and convent, which seems to cover most of the 
eases. This claim is for rent and damages to convent and church. 

The Chairman. I had in mind exactly what Mr. Garrett stated, 
but it was the suggestion of Colonel Hull to me, in conversation, that 
he be not called upon to make a selection of cases, but that the selection 
of cases be left to the members of the committee, so that there would 
be nothing of prearrangement. He wanted the committee to select 
any case from this record, and said that he would be prepared to ex- 
plain it. 

Mr. Garrett. That is very commendable ; I did not want to impose 
upon him the making of the selection. All I want is to get a typical 
case in that record. 

The Chairmaist. He wished the board to be perfectly justified, and 
so preferred that the selection of particular cases be made by the com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Olmsted. Let me ask you how large a place Vigan is ? 

Colonel Hull. Vigan is one of the most important places in north- 
ern Luzon; I should ssij that the population is somewhere in the 
neighborhood of 100,000. 

Mr. Olmsted. How much of a place is Goa ? 

Colonel Hull. Goa is in the southern portion of Luzon. We had 
the exact figures before us all the time, but we have not got them here 
now. Goa is not as large a place as Vigan. 

Mr. FoRNES. May I ask which case this is ? 

Colonel Hull. Case No. 351. The case is presented on the affidavits 
of three of the natives. Translated, it reads : 

That the American troops during the war against the Filipinos occupied for 
eighteen months, from the 26th of June. 1000. until December. 1901, tlie priest's 
house of the pueblo of Goa, and that the rent that should be paid for such occu- 
pancy amounts to 2,160. 

There is also a claim for damages. 

Mr. Larrinaga (translating). Fifty pieces of wood 9 yards long 
and 6 points " — I don't know what this means in the Filipino Ian- 
gauge; I suppose inches — " 6 points thick, at 9.15 each piece." 

Mr. Olmsted. Nine dollars for a piece of wood? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. Timber, building timber, 9 yards long. 

Mr. Larrinaga (continuing translation). "Nine yards wide by 6 
inches thick, at 9.75 each," $9 and some cents each. 

The Chairman. Dollars or pesos? 

Colonel Hull. Yes; in pesos. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 119 

The Chairman. Do those items indicate the general character of 
the claim? 

Colonel Hull. They run down. 

Mr. Larrinaga. The first item makes 1,522 pesos. 

Mr. Graham. As I understand it, the Commission cut all that out. 
They did not allow any damages besides for rent, so that it is not nec- 
essary to go into that at all. 

Colonel Hull. There is a claim for building materials, for furni- 
ture, for a small carriage, for a wall clock, for 79 pieces of galvanized 
iron, and for destruction to the stairway and to the bricks of the pas- 
sageway, making a total claim of 4,666.90 pesos. 

Mr. Davis. You allowed 2,200 pesos for damages for something? 

Mr. Graham. I thought that you had cut that all out. 

Colonel Hull. I have here a memorandum prepared by our search- 
ing of military information as to all the officers in the commands that 
had served at Goa during our occupancy of the buildings there. I 
find here several letters that we wrote to the officers, asking for in- 
formation, and I find here a report signed by George P. Wliite, cap- 
tain and quartermaster: 

Report on the Roman CatJwJic CMcrcli, etc., used by the Army. 

" 1. Town, Goa ; province, Ambos, Camarines ; island, Luzon, P. I." 

" 2. Use to whicli ttie building was applied before American occupation — 
such as churches, convents, church schoolhouses, bishops' -or priests' residences, 
hacienda buildings, offices, etc." 

As a convent and also as a dwelling of the local priest. 

" 3. General description and size of structures, whether stone, wood, nipa, 
etc." 

This was a large building, the first story of stone and the second of wood, 
size about 100 feet front and an ell of about the same dimensions. The roof 
was of corrugated iron. The basement was useless for dwelling purposes and 
never so used as I would judge from the building itself. 

" 4. Military use to which property has been applied — such as barracks 
(stating number of men or companies), hospitals, officers' quarters, storehouses, 
offices, etc." 

From April 7, 1901, to the time I left, about May 15, 1901, we used the upper 
story for barracks and the lower ones for storehouse purposes. This was only 
by a detachment of about 35 men of the Ninth Cavalry, Troop C. 

" 5. Was the building or other property used by the forces of the insurrec- 
tion or at immediately previous to the occupation bj^ the United States troops, 
or by civil authorities or constabulary, with dates thereof? " 

At the time I took charge of the building I relieved a company of the Forty- 
seventh Volunteer Infantry under command of Captain Goodman. Further 
than this I do not know. 

' ' 6. Reporting officer to estimate value of rental during period of United 
States Army use of same, rental values to be based on rents current during 
period of occupation and use. If boards of officers have already reported on 
question of rent, refer to same, when, and by whom forwarded. Reporting officer 
will also give his estimate of the A^alue of buildings, in Philippine currency." 

The rentals were different in each town that was occupied by the United 
States troops and the question of rental of this town never came before me 
during my stay of a month and a half. No records whatever were given me and 
I know nothing of any board being appointed to judge the same. 

" 7. Has any prior claim been made to the military authorities for rental or 
damages, or has any amount been paid? If so, give uecessarj^ information to 
trace action." 

None to my knowledge. 

"8. How long were buildings occupied by Army, giving dates?" 

I only know as to dates given. ' _. j 



120 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

" 9. Have auy buildings occupied by the Army beeu injured, wantonly or acci- 
dentally, or have tbey been improved and repaired by the Army? Give all facts 
and amounts. This item is very important, and full remark is requested." 

This building was in no way damaged by troops during the time I was there 
nor were any improvements made except that a stable for thirty horses was 
erected in the lot back of the building on land supposedly belonging to the 
church premises, but at the time unused and overgrown with weeds. No past 
records were kept at this station and the morning report was sent regularly to 
San Jose de Logonoy, which was considered as station headquarters, under com- 
mand of Major Paxton, Thirteenth Infantry (then captain, Fifteenth Infantry). 
I was the only officer with the command at Goa during the period, and when 
ordered away no one took my place, but the detachment was left under com- 
mand of the first sergeant of Troop C, Ninth Cavalry. 

My belief is that no damage whatever was done the building while occupied 
by the United States forces. 

Brief statement of Church claims submitted to board : 

months rental at ?= 

Damages 

Total 

Geo. p. White, 
Captain of Cavalry, Quartermaster U. 8. Army. 
Place, Presidio of San Francisco, Cal. 
Date, September 29, 1905. 

That is a very poor report. It is not as full as the ordinary reports 
we received. 

There was also at the sessions of the board Bishop Barlin, who had 
a certain amount of personal knowledge of the facts, and my inter- 
preter. He had been down through this portion of the country as the 
official interjoreter at the headquarters of this district, and had been in 
most of these buildings, so that we probably had in front of us, at the 
time this case was considered, my employee of large personal knowl- 
edge, and the bishop, who had personal knowledge of the case, and 
this report that I have indicated, from which to arrive at our finding. 
What was the amount of the award? 

Mr. Graham. Four thousand pesos. 

The Chairman. Two thousand dollars. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. The rental was 100 pesos. 

The Chairman. That is $50 a month. 

Colonel Hull. They claimed at the rate of 150 pesos per month, 
and we cut that to 100 pesos. 

The Chairman. They claimed at the rate of 150 pesos, and you 
cut that down to 100 pesos? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. For the damages they claimed $3,263.45. 
We reduced that to $1,100. We probably cut out a large portion of 
the claim for wood building material. 

Mr. Davis. If you will allow me to make a little statement and 
ask a question right there? 

Colonel Hull. Certainly. 

Mr. Davis. This is a claim for rent and for damages to the church 
and convent. Are not a great majority of the cases for rent and 
damages to the churches and convents? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Davis, please' make plain what you mean by 
" convent." 

Mr. Davis. It reads " convent " in the report. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTE ISLANDS. 121 

Colonel Hull. We used the word " convento " for not only the con- 
ventos, but also for the parish houses. 

Mr. Davis. That does not have any reference to a seminary, a 
girls' school, or boys' school? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, no. 

Mr. Davis. Then the majority of the cases in this report are simi- 
lar to this; it is only a question of different locality and different 
circumstances. 

Colonel Hull. The church was not occupied at Goa. 

Mr. Davis. In this particular case have you data as clear and ex- 
plicit upon which to base your findings, as ordinarily? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Davis. Then this is one of your weak cases as to damages. 
I think that it would be well to have in the record the way in 
which you arrived at your conclusions, because in this case docu- 
mentary evidence was wanting more than in the other cases. Hence, 
if it came up on the floor of the House, I do not see why this would 
not be a good case for illustrating to Congress the method by which 
you arrived at your conclusions. 

Colonel Hull. The claim was for rental and damage to the build- 
ings. We found that we had no report from the military authorities, 
and the bishop of the diocese made a verbal statement in regard to 
the case, and we then proceeded to go to The Military Secretary's 
office and got all the names of the officers who were there and the 
length of time the troops were in the town. We then proceeded to 
write to the officers who had been there for information. 

Mr. Davis. And that was the only way that you had of obtaining 
the facts? 

Colonel Hull. Without going to the town itself. 

Mr. FoRNES. May I ask a question? 

Colonel Hull. Just allow me to complete this statement, so as to 
make it complete. Upon the receipt of this very poor report of 
Captain White's, with our knowledge of the conditions existing, and 
the fact that our interpreter was in the same town and could give us 
information in regard to it, we thought that we were able to dispose 
of the case approximately correctly. 

Mr. Davis. Without visiting the place? 

Colonel Hull. Without visiting the place. If we had visited all 
of these places we would never have completed the work, and if we 
had waited for positive testimony one way or the other, we would 
never have completed the work, but here is a case where there is a 
claim for a lot of building material. Now, our general experience 
showed us that where the church authorities had been driven out of 
their possession by the insurrectionists, where they had an immense 
amount of building material, the natives of the town were not op- 
posed to carrying off that building material, and that the United 
States was afterwards charged with taking it away. 

Mr. Davis. Then you indulged in the presumption 

Colonel Hull. We gave the Government the benefit of the pre- 
sumption that the natives had carried away part, at least, of the 
material. 

Mr. Olmsted. Then the claim for building material was exagger- 
ated, I should say. I should say that $4.50 was a very high price 
for a plank. 



122 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. These were very big beams. We took up with the 
merchants of Manila the valuation of these logs, and we found that 
the amount alleged for the lumber was ordinarily the commercial rate 
charged, but the question arose as to the amount of the lumber, and 
the method by which the church had lost it. 

The Chairman. I understood you to say that besides the officers to 
whom you wrote, you had the sworn testimony of Bishop Barlin. 

Colonel Hull. He was before the board. 

The Chairman. And you also had your interpreter, who was 
familiar with the case. 

Colonel Hull. I think that the interpreter was familiar with this 
<)ase. Wherever there was one of these cases, in which he had been 
in the town, he would give us his personal knowledge. 

Mr. Davis. Then -you used and sought for the best testimony 
available. 

Colonel Hull. We tried to do this in all cases. I would not like 
to say positively that this interpreter was in that town. There are 
too many cases for me to say positively that this interpreter was in 
that particular town. I can not remember positively. 

Mr. Davis. The best evidence is all that can be expected. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Colonel Hull. Now, you can see that where there was some lumber, 
boards — things like that — some of that would be likely to be used. 
I should say, in going over this case again, in view of the fact that we 
built a stable out in the back yard for the shelter of the horses, that 
it is very likely that we used some of that lumber and galvanized 
iron. It is very likely that we used some of those beams or joists, and 
poles. 

Mr. Davis. It is natural to suppose that you did. 

Colonel Hull. There is also a claim for the destruction of some 
of the bricks. By going through the claim in that way I could 
segregate to a great'degree the number of items that we allowed, but 
I probably could not arrive at the exact figures that we did at the 
time we made the investigation. 

Mr. Davis. Would the statement of facts that you have just put 
into the record apply to similar cases all over the islands, generally 
speaking ? 

Colonel Hull. Generally speaking, this was the way we obtained 
our information, although I can say that in most of the cases the 
reports of the army officers were better. 

Mr. Davis. This, then, is one of the poorest cases, or, at least, was 
backed by the least positive and direct evidence; one of tile poorest 
cases. 

Mr. Helm. What variety of timber was that referred to in this 
case ? 

Colonel Hull. It was always " hard wood," building material, 
such as beams and things that would be used in the construction and 
repair of buildings. 

Mr. Graham. Is hard wood generally used for that purpose in the 
islands ? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, always by the natives. We arc the only peo- 
ple who use soft wood. 

Mr. Fornes. When you speak of a convent or convento, would not 
that term be known in this country as a monastery ? 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 123. 

Colonel Hull. To a certain degree. We explained in the back of 
our report the meaning of the word " convent," and how we used it 
solely for the purpose of convenience. See page 37 of our report. 

The Chairman. Let us be specific about it. You say " church and 
convent " in this case. A convent here in this country is usually 
understood as a home for sisters of charity. 

Colonel Hull. In this case it was the priest's house adjoining the 
church. 

The Chairman. It was not a home for sisters of charity, as we 
understand the word in this country ? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, no indeed. 

The Chairman. It was the priest's house. 

Colonel Hull. The parish house. 

Mr. Madison. What we call the parish house or rectory. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Larrinaga. There is a question there that I can answer. The 
convento was, of course, the dwelling house of the friars or of the 
priests of the community. There is no altar there; nothing but a 
dwelling house. The monastery means something else. It is a 
large church which has an adjoining room for the priest to live 
there, and it is a much more monumental structure than a convento. 
But the dwelling house for the friars and monks is not a church. 

Mr. FoRNES. As we understand it in this country, a church and 
rectory. 

The Chairman. Yes. Will some other member of the committee 
select some other claim? 

Mr. Page. Mr. Chairman, suppose we take No. 290, Exhibits Nos.^ 
646 to 652. 

The Chairman. No. 290, Taal, Bantangas. Before you say any- 
thing. Colonel, let us get the amount of the claim and of the award. 
The claim was for 18,885 pesos, that is $9,000 and over; and the 
award was 6,625 pesos, or about $3,300. It was cut down about 
$6,000. 

Mr. Page. I selected No. 290 merely in the hope that it would 
show some better evidence than the colonel got out of the other case- 
we have just gone over. 

Colonel Hull. One member of the board, Mr. Moore, was sta- 
tioned, I think, in this town, and was with the troops that first went 
into Batangas, and had personal knowledge of most of these Ba- 
tangas cases. Naturally, he worked up the Batangas cases on account 
of his personal knowledge of the facts. 

Mr. FoRNES. Can you recall the population of that town ? 

Colonel Hull. No, I could not say. 

Mr. FoRNES. Six or seven thousand? 

Colonel Hull. Oh, yes; more than that. The claim reads [trans- 
lating] , " For the occupation of the convent by the American troops 
from January, 1900, to July, 1903, at the rate of 200 pesos a month, 
amounting to 8,476 pesos." 

The Chairman. What did you award on that? Do you know? 

Mr. Olmsted. Thirty-five pesos a month. 

Mr. Page. That depends upon whether it was the old or new 
church. It seems that there were two there. 

Mr. FoRNES. Does the report mention the size of the church? 



124 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. We will come to that in due time. I think our 
reports will show that. [Continuing translation :] " For the occu- 
pation of a suburban piece of property — the property of the church — 
during three years and six months, the rent for which we have a 
right to claim at the rate of 25 pesos a month,' amounting to 1,050 
pesos." 

Mr. Graham. Is that what was referred to in the report as the 
corral ? 

Colonel Hull. I think that is evidently what we referred to. 

Mr. Graham. You allowed 12.50 pesos a month. 

Colonel Hull. That is a A^ery good rent for a piece of land in a 
town of that kind. There is a list of destructions and disappearances 
which the American troops had caused in the convents of this church 
and objects pertaining to the same. I see that there are 4 doors, 
amounting to 50 pesos ; 10 locks of iron, 10 pesos ; 4 boards, 20 pesos ; 
2 wardrobes, 14 pesos; 2 others, 16 pesos; large round table, 100 
pesos; 2 benches, 40 pesos; 13 shades, 20 pesos; destruction to pri^^ 
house, 6 pesos; image of patron saint, 200 pesos; 2 ciriales, which is 
the emblem that they put around the heads of saints, and 2 crosses, 50 
pesos. These are all church ornaments and vestments. There is also 
an altar, 2,000 pesos ; bell, 25 pesos ; large table, 80 pesos ; silver hang- 
ing chandelier, worth 500 pesos. That amounts to 2,936.50 pesos in 
all. The rents of the buildings which they had the right to occupy 
were put at the rate of 150 pesos per month from January, 1900, until 
the month of July, 1903, amounted to 6,357 pesos. 

Mr. FoRNES. Is that statement from which you have just trans- 
lated, sworn to? 

Colonel Hull. These statements are all sworn to by the natives. 

Mr. Graham. As I understand it. Colonel, you discounted all these 
claims, and make the total damages 850 pesos, which means that you 
disallowed almost all of these claims. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Olmsted. On what ground Avere they disallowed? 

Colonel Hull. Improbability, I should imagine. Here is a report 
in Spanish made by the presidente. It is the report of the local pres- 
idente. 

The Chairman. Please explain right who the presidente is. 

Colonel Hull. He is the mayor of the town. The report gives a 
diagram of the buildings. 

Mr. Larrinaga (translating the report) : 

Taal, AiH-iJ 78. J!)OS. 
Senoi" E. A. Hickman, 

First Lieutenant Cavalry, Xo. 7. 
Sir : In answer to your conrteons letter of tlie ITtli of the present month, 
I can uiform you that, first, accorduig to the decision of tlie nmnicipal council 
of this pueblo on the 22d of July, 1901, there are certain properties oV munici- 
pal conventos and churches in Taal, but, in view of the i)rotests presented by 
the priest in charge of this parish, at the meeting held on the 26th day 
of the same month of July, the council declared the property of the Itoman 
Catholic Church such establishnieut-ss, although they were built with the 
product of personal taxes in the country : second, that before the occupation 
by the Americans these convents were used as dwelling i)laces for the priests 
of the town ; third, the convent used before the occupation of the U. S. troops : 
fourth, the Americans occupied them since the ISth day of January, 1900. if 
my memory does not fail me, constantly until the present day. It is not known 
that payment has ever been asked for the rent of those edifices by any apes- 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 125 

tolic authority ; sixth, that such establishments or buildings are the prop- 
erty of the Church. 

This is all that I can inform you in the premises. 

Colonel Hull. Here is a report from Capt. Edwin A. Hickman, 
first lieutenant, First Cavalry. 

REPORT ON ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH BUILDINGS, ETC., USED BY THE ARMY. 

1. Name the owner, such as: (a) The Roman Catholic Church; (?)) The 
religious order; (c) The company (Limited). 



2. Use to which the building was applied before American occupation — 
such as churches, convents, church schoolhouses, bishops' or priests' resi- 
dences, hacienda buildings, offices, etc. ( See report in Spanish attached. ) Made 
by presidente, than whom there is no more responsible person to consult. 

3. General description and size of the structures, whether stone, wood, 
nipa, etc. 

Church on hill in Taal : Convent wing in use only. Stone foundation, tile 
roof, wood superstructure with shell windows. Front, IIS feet ; width, 57 
feet ; wing. 111 feet by 48 feet, with kitchen included in length, which is but 
32 feet wide. 

Church on river in Taal : Same as above — but very old and in poor repair. 
Front, 64 feet ; width, 36 feet ; wing, 56 by 38 feet. 

4. Military use to which property has been applied — such as barracks 
(stating number of men or companies), hospitals, officers' quarters, store- 
houses, offices, etc. 

Convent on hill in Taal used as barracks; 85 to 100 men. 
Convent by river in Taal used as quarters for civilian employees; 15 to 20 
men. 

5. Was the building or other property used by the forces of the insurrection 
at or immediately previous to the occupation by the United States troops? 
(See presiclente's report attached.) 

6. Reporting officer to estimate value of rental during period of United 
States Army use of same, rental value to be based on rents current during 
period of occupation and use. If boards of officers have already reported on 
question of rent, refer to same; where, when, and by whom forwarded. 

Convent on hill in Taal : Records quartermaster's office reads " Occupied 
before arrival of Sixth Cavalry, April 21, 1901." No record left prior to that 
date. No board of officers. Thirty dollars gold per month would be fair and 
reasonable rental. 

Convent by river in Taal : Record quartermaster's office reads " Occupied 
since March 15, 1901. No rent paid." No board of officers. Fifteen dollars 
gold per month would be fair and reasonable rental. 

7. Has demand or request ever been made for rent by church authorities or 
to vacate the premises? If so, refer to papers, by whom, when, and where 
forwarded. 

No record in this office. (See presidente's report attached.) 

8. Dates between which the army occupied the structures from American 
occupation to March 1, 1903. (See answer to No. 6.) Both buildings occupied 
at date of this report (April 21, 1903). 

9. Have provincial or municipal authorities officially or \'erbally claimed that 
these buildings are public and not church property? Forward or refer to papers, 
if any. (See presidente's report attached.) 

10. Have any such buildings occupied by the Army been injured, wantonly or 
accidentally, or have they been improved and repaired by the Army? Give all 
facts and amounts. 

Convent on hill in Taal : Not injured wantonly or accidentally. No improve- 
ments or repair by Army worth mentioning. 

Convent by river in Taal same as above. The church to which the convent is 
attached has suffered from abandonment and lack of care. Altar has been torn 
np. By whom, unknown. From all appearances and surroundings, this build- 
ing had not been used for church purposes for several years. 

(Note. — ^All buildings at any one post or station to be covered by one report 
if practicable.) 

Place. — Taal, Batangas, P. I. 

Z>a/e.— April 21, 1903. 

Edwin A. Hickman, 
First Lieutenant, First Cavalry, Commanding Post. 



126 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. We recommend 90 pesos a month for the rent of the 
convent and neAv church. 

Mr. Graham. Ninety pesos? 

Colonel Hull. Yes; $45. For the occupation of the convent at 
Taal, which was occupied by the quartermaster, he estimates 30 pesos. 
We raised that to 35 pesos. 

The Chaieman. Two dollars and a half more. 

Colonel Hull. Even that not being deemed sufficient, we wrote to 
Major Morgan. He wrote to the board from Fort Riley, Kans., as 
follows : 

FoET Riley, Kans., October 30, J905 

I certify that Taal, Bataaigas Province, P. I., was occupied by my battalion 
of the Twenty-eighth United States Volunteer Infantry January 21, 1900. It 
had been captu^-ed one or two days before by a combined movement of ti'oops 
under Col. George S. Anderson, Thirty-eighth ITuited States Volunteers, and 
Maj. W. H. .Johnston, Forty-sixth United States Volunteers. The to^vn had 
been put in a state of defense, trenches and barricades in the streets, promi- 
nent hills fortified, and the great church referred to by De Gracia and Mitra 
as the " parish church " had been gutted and prepared for defense ; also the 
" Holy Church of the Cay Sa Say," situated under the hill, had not been spe- 
cially prepared for defense, but the image of the Virgin and all her accessories 
had been removed. 

Upon assuming command of the place all property left was duly guarded and 
cared for, and was as found while the Twenty-eighth Infantry, United States 
Volunteers, was in charge of the town, up to December, 1900. 

During the Malvar campaign, December, 1901, to April, 1902, I was again 
in command of the district, and found the church property practically as I 
left it in 1900. 

As a condition precedent to accepting the surrender of the insurgent forces 
at Taal, I required that the sacred image of the Virgin Cay Sa Say and her 
belongings be returned to the church, and about January 12, 1902, this was 
done. 

Trying to induce the priest in charge to bring back the sacred image and 
church property, I called upon the archbishop of Manila and informed him 
of the disappearance of the image and church property. He informed me 
that I was mistaken^as to the church vestments ; that, anticipating the out- 
break, he had caused all of the rich vestments to be removed to Manila, and 
at that time they were under his charge ; that he would use his best efforts to 
get the image back to its sanctuary, but that the priest, Castillio, in charge 
was very insubordinate, etc. 

Making it a military requirement, as above stated, the image was returned 
by Castillio the day of the surrender, and a few days later all the rich vest- 
ments, altars, etc., were returned from a hiding place on the volcano island 
in Lake Taal. All this property was dulj' turned over to the vicar of the 
district. Padre Montenegro. No receipt was taken by m-e, but I understood 
that the whole was returned. 

The few vestments left in the parish church were of little value, and were 
carefully guarded, nevertheless. 

I note that the water tank in the parish church, which had been made of 
lead, was evidently used for bullets, the organ pipes for making shrapnel 
shells, etc. ; articles thus manufactured were found in Taal, and natives in- 
formed me that was the use made of these articles. 

Maj. Sam Crawford, of the constabulary, may be able to give further evi- 
dence in regard to this matter. He was a captain of my battalion, Twenty- 
eighth United States Volunteer Infantry. 

Geo. H. IMoRGAJsr, 
Major, Ninth Cavalry, 
Late Major, Twentij-cighth United States Volunteer Infantry. 

and Chief Commissary and Acting A. D. G. 

Mr. Graha3i. That is the reason you cut out these damages foi 
stuff taken aAvay ? 

Colonel Hull. This officer testified that he had taken full care o\ 
all property left in the church. Part of it was taken away by the 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IIT PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 127 

church itself, and we thought, in view of Mr. Moore's knowledge 
and Major Morgan's positive statement, that instead of the troops 
doing the damage we had even guarded these few vestments that were 
worthless, and that the claim of the church was not well founded, and 
we did not allow it. 

Mr. HJELM. Who filed this claim? I am not interested in the name 
of the person himself, but 

Colonel Hull. This claim was prepared by the parish priest of 
Taal and is sworn to by a writer and the principal sacristan of the 
town. It was prepared by the parish priest and by him forwarded 
to the archbishop of Manila, and by him turned over to the papal 
delegate, and was submitted to the board through the department 
commander in the Philippines. 

Mr. Olmsted. If these claims were to be paid, would the appro- 
priation of this sum of $363,000 be regulated? Would it be paid to 
these particular persons in the churches in these towns, or would it 
be just in one gross payment to the Catholic Church? 

Colonel Hull. That matter was very fully discussed by the com- 
mittee at a couple of its sessions when you were not present. The 
money would ultimately drift down to these towns, and be spent 
there. 

Mr. Olmsted. We would deal with the church, itself. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Olmsted. And you say that the $40,000 for the carrying away 
of some sacred ornaments, etc., would be how divided among the 
several churches ? How would it be determined what had been taken 
away from the different churches and conventos? 

Colonel Hull. Nobody on earth could determine that. The bishops 
would have to make an equitable division. 

Mr. Olmsted. This $363,030.19 which you recommend to be paid 
of rental and damages, does that cover the whole of the Philippine 
Islands ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Olmsted. The order on the first page of your report is a little 
vague. It reads : " To investigate and report upon such claims as 
may be submitted to it (the board) from these headquarters." I 
understand that this covers all claims of the kind in the Philippine 
Islands. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; that is my understanding. 

Mr. Fornes. In case any other claims should be presented that are 
not included in this report, would the church still have a standing 
to make those claims? 

Colonel Hull. I suppose that it would have a standing to make 
them, but this report is intended to cover all the claims. 

Mr. Page. Does this cover all the claims made up to the time of 
the rendering of the report? 

Colonel Hull. It covers all the claims up to date. Due notice was 
given, so that any claim presented now would be outlawed. Good 
faith would not even require an investigation. 

Mr. Gareett. These claims were all forwarded to the archbishop, 
were they not? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. The archbishop of Manila never saw a 
great many of them; he only saw the claims from his own diocese. 

25765—08 9 . 



128 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

He has nothing- to do with the financial claims of any other diocese 
than that of Manila. 

Mr. Page. They were filed, as I understood you, by the papal dele- 
gate. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. What is the relation of the papal delegate ? 

Mr. Page. He is the representative of the Pope, and the one author- 
ity over all of the dioceses in the Philippine Islands. 

Mr. Olmsted. He represents the whole church as an entirety. 

Colonel Hull. He represents the church as a whole. 

Mr. Garrett. In administrative matters he is the representative. 
He has a right to act in the name of the Pope. This power is dele- 
gated to him by the Vatican. 

Mr. Garrett. The question has been suggested here, and I do not 
know how extensively it has been gone into, or how extensively there 
may be a desire to go into it, as to the right of the church to receive 
this money in a lump sum, and to have it turned over absolutely to 
the church without Congress undertaking to divide it. 

Colonel Hull. I think that that matter has been gone into. 

Mr. Garrett. Mr. Jones stated the other day that all these churches 
had been paid for by local contributions and that under the organic 
law all church property is under the control of the Pope as well. 
Some question might arise as to whether it ought to be turned over to 
the archbishop or to the church authorities for distribution, or 
whether Congress ought to undertake to distribute it. 

Mr. Fornes. Let me make a statement right there. I have received 
information in the way of a written statement that whatever money 
is allowed in this matter will be spent by the church in the Philip- 
pines for the purpose of the restoration of the property for which it 
has been allowed. That statement I can make, and I will also state 
that as far as the church law goes, every archbishop has full charge 
of the property of bis own diocese, and the title to the property is in 
the name of the bishop of the diocese. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that if any other mem- 
ber of the committee has no particular claim to request, we have now 
gone over the question of rentals, damages to churches, con vent os, 
convents, etc., and have particularized to a certain extent for the rec- 
ord. For the benefit of an outsider who may read the report of our 
hearings — Members of Congress — I would suggest that in order to 
give a clear idea of the matter, we take claim No. 362, which is like a 
number of others in the report, and which reads as follows : 

No. 362. Tubugan, Iloilo : Claim for damages for looting church and convent, 
amounting to ?32,344. 

We recommend that nothing be paid, for even if claim was substantiated it 
was the unlawful acts of the service. 

Ought not the record now to disclose some reason, or explain why a 
claim of that magnitude was rejected, in order that any Member of 
Congress could pick up the report and ascertain the method and rea- 
sons why it was rejected? 

The Chairman. That is a good suggestion. Colonel Hull, why 
was that? 

Colonel Hull. This was hostile territory. It was a town some dis- 
tance from our regular base of supplies. 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 129 

Mr. Davis. There are a number of other cases of apparently the 
same nature. 

Colonel Hull. Speaking generally and from memory, and from my 
knowledge of .our troops, it would not have been natural for tliem to 
have gone in and deliberately carried off the stuff that it is alleged 
they took. The claim is improbable on its face. Even if substan- 
tiated, as the board says, it would be a violation of the principles that 
have governed the Government heretofore, to fully compensate for 
that tortious act. To carry off that property, the entire coi.'ipany 
would have had to be guilty. If any report had been made to the 
commanding general of such an occurrence anywhere near the time, 
the case would have been investigated and the officer would liave been 
court-martialed and dismissed and the enlisted men would have been 
punished and their pay stopped and the church reimbursed for any 
loss sustained. 

Mr. Davis. Is there any proof that this looting had taken place? 

Colonel Hull. Nothing but affidavits by natives, and you can get 
those by the dozen of all or any description. Now, that such claims 
should lie dormant for years and then suddenly be presented after the 
actors have all passed away to other places, it would not seem that 
they were worthy of careful consideration or were proper claims. 

Mr. Davis. That statement would apply to many other claims here 
in reference to which you have made the same memorandum. 

Colonel Hull. Virtually ; yes, sir. I am speaking from memory. 

Mr. Olmsted. You recommended that there be nothing paid be- 
cause there is no such claim substantiated, and even if it had been 
substantiated it would be an unlawful act of the service. What does 
that mean? 

Colonel Hull. " Servants " there would mean unlawful acts of 
Government agents. I do not know that we used that word " service " 
in a single case. 

The Chairman. It should be " servants " there, if anything. 

Mr. Olmsted. You mean then that it would not be the Government, 
or anybody acting under the authority of the Government, but of in- 
dividuals acting outside of their employment. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Olmsted. And you mean the same thing, then, as to the suc- 
ceeding claim. No. 363, when you say, " We recommend that nothing 
be paid. Even if substantiated it would be an act of war." 

Colonel Hull. I think that was a claim for burning. I will look 
up the exhibits, if you don't mind. 

Mr. Olmsted. There are two or three claims right together there 
just alike, 

Mr. Jones. I would like to ask the Colonel a question or two. I do 
not know how long these meetings are to continue. There are one or 
two general questions I want to get into the record. 

Colonel Hull. Just a minute, please. I was asked about that Tu- 
bugan claim. I find that we have a report here of Capt. F. D. Wick- 
ham, of the Twelfth Infantry, with two affidavits. He says : 

There is no evidence ttiat any of the property claimed was talieu by United 
States troops. No troops were ever stationed in the town, and the insurgents 
were in the place oftener than our forces. Father Felix Gedican, the present 
priest, is of the opinion that if our troops took anything at all it was taken as 
loot and that the claim is excessive. 



130 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



Colonel Hull. Here is his full report: 



Report on Roman Catholic Church buildings, etc., used ty the Army. 

" 1. Name the owner, such as:" 

(a) The Roman Catholic Church, Tubugan, Pauay, P. I. 

(&) The — — — , religious order. 

(c) The Company (Limited). 

" 2. Use to which the building was applied before American occupation — such 
as churches, convents, church schoolhouses, bishops' or priests' residences, haci- 
enda buildings, ofBces, etc." 

Church. 

" 3. General description and size of the structures, whether stone, wood, nipa, 
etc." 

Stone, iron roof. About 250 by 125. 

"4. Military use to which property has been applied — such as barracks (stat- 
ing number of men or companies), hospitals, officers' quarters, storehouses, 
offices, etc." 

None. 

" 5. Was the building or other property used by the forces of the insurrection 
at or immediately previous to the occupation by the United States troops?" 

No. 

" 6. Eeporting officer to estimate value of rental during period of United 
States Army use of same, rental value to be based on rents current during 
period of occupation and use. If boards of officers have already reported on 
question of rent, refer to same, where, when, and by whom forwarded." 

None. 

" 7. Has demand or request ever been made for rent by church authorities, 
or to vacate the premises? If so, refer to papers, by whom, when, and where 
forwarded." 

No. 

" 8. Dates between which the Army occupied the structures from American 
occupation to March 1, 1903." 

Never, occupied. 

" 9. Have provincial or municipal authorities officially or verbally claimed 
that these buildings are public and not church property? Forward or refer to 
papers, if any." 

No. 

" 10. Have any such,buildings occupied by the Army been injured wantonly 
or accidentally, or have they been improved and repaired by the Army? Give 
all facts and amounts." 

No. 

There is no evidence that any of the property claimed was taken by United 
States troops. No troops were ever stationed in the town and the insurgents 
were in the place oftener than our forces. Father Felix Gedican, the present 
priest, is of the opinion that if our troops took anything at all it was taken as 
loot and that the claim is excessive. 

See affidavits attached and marked "A" and " B," respectively. Notice two 
affidavits by Vincente Tacsagon. 

(Note. — All buildings at any one post or station to be covered by one report, 
if practicable.) 

Place, Tubugan, Panay, P. I. 

Date, December 21, 1905. 

F. D. WiCKHAM, 

Ca<ptain, Tioelfth Infantry. 

Colonel Hull. That is case 362. Now, as to 363. 

Mr. Olmsted. There seems to be two parts of that : First, that the 
claim is not substantiated ; and second, even if substantiated, it would 
be an act of war. 

Colonel Hull. In his report, Captain Wickham states : 

At present the building is in a very poor state of repair and no care taken^ 
of it. There is no positive evidence that anything was taken from this church"" 
by United States troops, or that it was ever burned by them. The people when 
questioned say they do not know whether it was the insui-gent foi'ce or the 
United Sates force which did the damage as they were all very much frightened 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 131 

at the time, and left the town, and that the two men who made the affidavits 
setting forth the damage were not in the town at the time, either. 

The full report reads: 

Report on Roman Catholic Church 'buildings, etc., used by the Army. 

" 1. Name the owner, such as :" 

(a) The Roman Catholic Church, Calinog, Panay, P. I. 

(6) The , religious order. 

(c) The Co. (Limited). 

" 2. Use to which the building was applied before American occupation- 
such as churches, convents, church school houses, bishops' or priests' residences, 
hacienda buildings, offices, etc.'' 

Church. 

" 3. General description and size of the structures, whether stone, wood, nipa, 
etc." 

Stone, with iron roof. 

"4. Military use to which property has been applied — such as barracks (stat- 
ing number of men or companies), hospitals, officers' quarters, storehouses, 
offices, etc." 

None. 

" 5. Was the building or other property used by the forces of the insurrec- 
tion at or immediately previous to the occupation by the United States troops?" 

Yes. 

" 6. Reporting officer to estimate value of rental during period of United 
States Army use of same, rental value to be based on rents current during period 
of occupation and use. If boards of officers have already reported on question 
of rent, refer to same ; where, when, and by whom forwarded." 

None. 

" 7. Has demand or request ever been made for rent by church authorities, or 
to vacate the premises? If so, refer to papers, by whom, when, and where 
forwarded." 

No. 

" 8. Dates between which the Army occupied the structures from American 
occupation to March 1, 1903." 

Never occupied. 

" 9. Have provincial or municipal authorities officially or verbally claimed 
that these buildings are public and not church property? Forward or refer to 
papers, if any." 

No. 

" 10. Have any such buildings occupied by the Army been injured, wantonly 
or accidentally, or have they been improved and repaired by the Army? Give 
all facts and amounts." 

No repairs. 

At present the building is in a .very poor state of repair and no care taken of 
it. There is no positive evidence that anything was taken from this church by 
United States troops, or that it was ever burned by them. The people when 
questioned say they do not know whether it was the insurgent force or the 
United States force which did the damage, as they were all very much fright- 
ened at the time and left the town, and that the two men who made the affida- 
vits setting forth the damage were not in the town at the time, either. 

(Note. — All buildings at any one post or station to be covered by one report, 
if practicable.) 

Place, Calinog, Panay, P. I. 

Date, December 16, 1905. 

F. D. WiCKHAM, 

Captain, Tioelfth Infantry. 

Mr. Olmsted. I want to get your meaning of that second defense, 
as to acts of war, which applies to a great many of the claims. 

Colonel Hull. That is explained in the back of our report. 

Mr. Jones. Were there any other cases in which you discovered 
upon investigation that the troops who were alleged to have commit- 
ted the damages were not even in the town when the alleged damages 
were committed, or is this the only case? 



132 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IIST PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Colonel Hull. There were a number of cases where they showed 
ignorance or misconception in their affidavits. A siudy of the affida- 
vits does not lead one to any great belief in the correctness of the 
native testimony. I have had experience with that in other matters. 

Mr. Graham. As I understand you, this damage was probably done 
by the insurgents. 

Colonel Hull. Whether it was done by insurgents or United States 
troops we do not know. 

Mr, Davis. Possibly the looting was done by the owners themselves, 
who kept the sacred vestments in hiding. 

Colonel Hull. That was one of the cases. 

Mr. Jones. You mean to say that the looting was done in many 
cases by the owners, very probably? 

Colonel Hull. In cases, people of the town went into the churches 
and hid the ornaments and vestments, some from religious motives 
and some from opposite motives. 

The Chairman. That was in the reports of the Regular Army 
officers. 

Take claim No. 374, which is a claim for rent and damages to con- 
vent amounting to 5,875 pesos. You recommend payment of rent for 
three months at 25 pesos per month, amounting to 75 pesos alto- 
gether, and no damages. There the claim was for $2,900, and you 
gave them $37.50. Is that a remarkable one ? 

Mr. Jones. What is the number of that claim, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. No. 374. 

Mr. Olmsted. At the bottom of page 30. 

Colonel Hull. That happened in some cases where buildings had 
been burned when we occupied them. This investigation was made 
at my suggestion by Capt. Clarence S. Nettles, acting judge- advocate, 
Department of Visaya, who went there and took testimony on the 
subject. He was authorized to administer oaths. His report is as 
follows : 

Rejwrt on Roman Catholic Church Jyuildings, etc., used Ity the Army. 

" 1. Name the owner, such as : " 

(a) The Roman Catholic Church. 

(&) The , religious order. ♦ 

(c) The Co. (Limited.) 

" 2. Use to which the building was applied before American occupation — 
such as churches, convents, church schoolhouses, bishops' or priests' residences, 
hacienda buildings, offices, etc." 

Church used for religious purposes and convent as priest's residence up to 
date of insurrection, November, 1898, when priest fled. Afterwards occupied 
by insurgent troops. 

" 3. General description and size of the structures, whether stone, wood, nipa, 
etc." 

The church was about 100 by 50 feet ; walls of sewalle, roof of nipa : now 
entirely destroyed, apparently from decay consequent to nonuse, neglect, and 
natural causes. Convent a small building of four rooms, also of light structure 
and nipa roof. In complete state of decay, due to nonuse and natural causes. 

" 4. Military use to which property has been applied — such as barracks 
(stating number of men or companies), hospitals, officers' quarters, store- 
houses, offices, etc." 

As barracks for small detachment of about 30 men. 

" 5. Was the building or other property used by the forces of the insurrec- 
tion at or immediately previous to the occupation by the United States troops?" 

No evidence. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 133 

" 6. Reporting officer to estimate value of rental during period of United 
States use of same, rental value to be based on rents current during period of 
occupation and use. If boards of officers bave already reported on question of 
rent, refer to same; wbere, when, and by whom forwarded." 

Ten dollars gold per month. 

" 7. Has demand or request ever been made for rent by church authorities, or 
to vacate the premises? If so, refer to papers; by whom, when, and where 
forwarded." 

Not known. 

" 8. Dates between which the Army occupied the structures from American 
occupation to March 1, 1903." 

About three months. 

" 9. Have provincial or municipal authorities officially or vei'bally claimed 
that these buildings are public and not church property? Forward or refer to 
papers, if any." 

Not known to have. As stated, the buildings are at present unfit for any use 
whatever. 

" 10. Have any such buildings occupied by the Army been injured wantonly 
or accidently, or have they been improved and repaired by the Army? Give 
all facts and amounts." 

There is no evidence of wanton or accidental injury. It is my opinion that 
these buildings have simply rotted away, due to natural causes, climate, etc., 
and lack of care and nonuse. 

(Note. — All buildings at any one post or station to be covered by one report, 
If practicable.) 

Place, La Castellana, Occidental Negros. 

Date, September 23, 1905. 

Clarence S. Nettles, 
Captain, Acting Judge-Advocate, U. S. Army. 

Mr. Jones. Yon recommend the payment of rent at 25 pesos per 
month, which is really more than the amount recommended by the 
Army officer in this instance. 

Colonel Hull. We allowed a little more than the evidence in front 
of us would warrant, 

Mr. Jones. I want to ask you a general question or two. Gen- 
erally speaking, I understand that the property for which rent and 
damages is claimed is of three characters — first, cathedrals; second, 
churches and conventos, and, third, seminaries or school buildings. 
Now, I understand from your reports here that these cathedrals 
were built by contributions of one-third by the members of the 
church, one-third out of the general island treasury, and one-third 
out of the local funds. Will you please state how the conventos were 
built? 

Colonel Hull. They were built in a great many different ways. 
In a great many towns it is reported that they were built by the 
labor of the people of the town and contributions from the wealthy 
people in the town. In other cases the government gave funds, and 
in still other cases the church gave money from the church funds, 
but as to any fixed rule it would be impossible to state. 

Mr. Jones. There were no uniform means by which they were 
built? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir; according to my understanding, 

Mr. Jones. How about the seminaries and the school property? 

Colonel Hull. I think they were generally built out of the funds 
of the diocese, aided by contributions and labor of the people. 

Mr. Jones. What do you mean by " funds of the diocese ? " Do 
you mean local funds or particular church funds? 

Colonel Hull. Funds of the diocese — church funds. 



134 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Mr. Jones. There was a case, you know, taken to the supreme 
court, which probably was supposed to be a typical case. Do you 
know whether the property involved in that particular test case — 
alleged test case — was a cathedral, or whether it was a church and a 
convent, or whether it was school property ? 

Colonel Hull. My recollection is that it was a church and con- 
vent, constructed one-third out of the central treasury and the rest 
by voluntary contributions. I speak from memory. You have the 
case in front of you, I think. 

Mr. Jones. No ; I do not have it in front of me. 

Colonel Hull. It is before the committee, is it not, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Yes; we have a report here. It came after we 
adjourned last spring. 

Mr.' Jones. Do you think it possible that you could take any 
one case, or even a class of cases there, as I have discovered them, 
and make a test case of that one case which would rule all of the 
other cases? 

The Chairman. Permit me to suggest that the supreme court has 
decided that the title is in the church. 

Mr. Jones. That was in the case that was before the supreme 
court, but there was but one case before the supreme court, and that 
is what I am trying to get at. They decide that the property involved 
in that suit belonged to the church, and it is alleged, or claimed, I 
suppose, that that is a test case. Now, I have discovered in these 
hearings that the cathedrals, for instance, were built one-third out 
of funds contributed by the general government (the insular gov- 
ernment), one-third by local funds (taxes set apart for local pur- 
poses), and only one-third, and the other third by private contri- 
butions. That is not the case with a great deal of the other propert}^ 
in the islands for which we are asked to pay damages. The question 
with me is whether it would be possible to pick out any one of these 
cases — any one of tHis class of cases — and then show that the deci- 
sion in that case would cover all other cases, no matter how different 
the ownership might be. That is what I want to get the opinion of 
Colonel Hull on. He was judge-advocate over there, and he made the 
examination as to the ownership of title, as well as to the character 
of the damages to this property. 

Colonel Hull. It is a question of practice. Doubtless, a good 
many members of the committee have had more experience in such 
matters than I have. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Does not that decision go to the point that always, 
in reference to the organized church, the legal title lies in the bishop 
of the diocese? That is the old canonical law. 

Mr. Jones. That whole question is discussed in this one case. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. I think that the decision of the supreme court of 
the islands covers that point. They have held that the title to the 
church property always lies in the bishop. 

Mr. Davis. No matter who built it. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. There has got to be a legal title somewhere. 

Mr. Jones. I do not want to discuss this subject in the committee 
now. We will discuss it when we take the matter up for discussion. 
I want to get at the facts now. You maj be right about that. I am 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 135 

not discussing the decision of the supreme court. What I want to 
get at is the facts as to the ownership of this property, so that when 
we come to consider this question we will be able to determine 
whether or not that was a test case, and that the rule laid down in 
that case should govern in all other cases where damages are claimed. 

Mr. Olmsted. Let me ask you this, Mr. Jones : The buildings were 
paid for one-third by the Philippine government, one-third by the 
church, and one-third by local funds. I do not understand what is 
meant by " local funds." 

Mr. Jones. I understand " local funds " to be a part of the local 
taxes contributed or set apart by the general government for local 
purposes. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. And individual contributions. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, here is an important point. Colonel 
Hull used the words " Philippine government." We want it to be 
distinctly understood that the Philippine government as now con- 
stituted did not contribute to the church. It was the Spanish Govern- 
ment, not the Philippine government, which contributed. 

Mr. Jones. I said out of the general insular government. 

Mr. McKiNLAY. Would it not be a pretty fair presumption that 
when the supreme court of the islands had taken a case which, pre- 
sumably, was a test case and applied to the title to the church prop- 
erty that Avould apply to all of the cases? Can we not take that as 
a fair presumption ? 

Mr. Jones. I am anxious to get at the facts, so as to decide that. 
What would be the use of getting Colonel Hull's opinion on these 
items if we are going to decide the title in each particular case by 
the facts in the case. 

The Chairman. There is one question that I want to ask Colonel 
Hull. Have you talked with the church authorities over there on 
the general subject of limiting the purposes for which the appro- 
priation, if made, should be expended? 

Colonel Hull. I have never discussed any such question with them, 
other than that everyone of the authorities have assured me that if 
any money were appropriated, it would be used in rebuilding and 
reconstruction of the church properties in the Philippine Islands. 

The Chairman. Is it jowr judgment that it would be wise for us 
to insert in the apj)ropriation bill, if one be passed, a provision direct- 
ing that the money appropriated shall be used for building purposes 
in the Philippine Archipelago — shall be expended in the islands? 

Colonel Hull. That is a question that really is not before me, but, 
at the same time, I feel that any such provision as that would do no 
harm. In view of the statements that the Catholic authorities have 
made to me, I think that there would be no objection on their j)art to 
such a limitation. 

(At this point the committee adjourned until 10.30 o'clock a. m. 
of to-morrow, Thursday, January 23, 1908.) 



136 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



Committee on Insular Afeairs, 

House of Repkesentatwes, 

Thursday^ January 23^ 1908. 
The committee met at 10,30 o'clock a. m., Hon. Henry Allen Cooper, 
chairman, presiding. 

STATEMENT OF LIEUT. COL. JOHN A. HULL, U. S. ARMY— Continued. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. Is there any 
member of the committee who desires t6 further question Colonel 
Hull about any of the claims? 

Mr. FoRNES. I desire to ask Colonel Hull where these claims were 
made and not recognized, were they generally made under the as- 
sumption that whether our troops had occupied or in any way made 
use of the property, they believed that the Government was respon- 
sible? Was there such an impression prevailing? 

Colonel Hull. No ; I do not think there was, for the reason that 
during Spanish times, and during the insurrection of 1896 and 1898, 
many of these buildings had been occupied by either the insurgents 
or the Spanish forces, and no claims had been made against Spain 
for such occupancy or for such losses, and I should say that the gen- 
eral impression among the natives was that that was something for 
which there was no responsibility. 

Mr. FoRNES. They may have made the claims in the belief that there 
was now a responsible party against* which to make the claims. 

Colonel Hull. That is speculative to a certain degree. 

Mr. Jones. Colonel Hull, I want to ask jou one or two rather gen- 
eral questions. 

Are there any claims which were investigated by your board where 
the church authorities were unable to give you definite facts relating 
to the damages claimed by reason of the fact that the Aglipayans were 
in possession of the churches all the time and they therefore could 
not furnish you that? 

Colonel Hull. That was true in a number of provinces. In Bishop 
Daugherty's diocese, in the northern part of Luzon, there were sev- 
eral provinces so held, and he claimed that the church suffered quite 
a loss in the award, due to such conditions, as the church was thereby 
unable to make proper presentation of their claims. 

Mr. Jones. Do you know of any cases of damage to church prop- 
erty, or destruction of church property, where this property was built 
wholly by contributions from the people? 

Colonel Hull. Any such specific cases I can not call to mind at 
present, but I have no doubt that there were such cases. 

Mr. Jones. In any of these cases were the representatives of the 
Independent Catholic Church in possession of the property when you 
made your investigation? 

Colonel Hull. You mean in these cases ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes ; in any of the cases enumerated in your report, in 
any of the churches named in your rejDort. 

Colonel Hull. Yes; in a number of the cases mentioned in our re- 
port the actual possession of the buildings at the time we were in- 
vestigating the claims was in the hands of the Aglipayans. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 137 

Mr. Jones. Had that possession been continuously in their hands 
since the insurrection? 

Colonel Hull. As I think I stated on the first day that I appeared 
before this committee, we paid no attention to the Aglipayan order in 
the investigations that we made as to whether they were in possession 
of the property or not. In other words, the exact ownership of this 
property was not made the subject of close inquiry. 

Mr. Jones. You did not then, I understand, investigate as to how 
long either branch of the church had been in possession of the prop- 
erty, but you do know that the Aglipayans, or the Independent Cath- 
olic Church, was in possession of some o'f this property at the time 
you made your investigations. 

Colonel Hull. In a large number of cases. 

The Chairman. Is that all, Mr. Jones ? 

Mr. Jones. That is all I wanted to ask the colonel. 

Colonel Hull. That information, I might state, was obtained by 
the board not only from the statements of the Catholic authorities, 
but it also appeared in some cases in the reports of the army officers 
submitted to the board. 

The Chairman. Let us have a distinct understanding as to what 
was meant by the Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines. 
When was that church first heard of there ? 

Colonel Hull. Along about thB latter part of the summer, or in 
the early fall of the year 1902. 

The Chairman. That was after our occupancy of the islands ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who was Aglipay ? 

Colonel Hull. He was a sort of vicar-general, at one time, of the 
diocese of Vigan, under the Roman Catholic Church. 

The Chairman. That was prior to the war, and before our occu- 
pancy ? 

Colonel Hull. It was after our occupancy — say, August, 1898, to 
March, 1899. The insurgents seized the bishop of Vigan and carried 
him to the mountains, and he subsequently died of hardships that 
were placed upon him by the insurgents. 

The Chairman. The bishop of Vigan of the Catholic Church ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Not of the Independent Church ? 

Colonel Hull. No, no; that was before the Independent Church 
had started. Then Aglipay joined the insurrection as a general of 
the insurrectionary forces, and he had the reputation among the 
Americans of being a very bloodthirsty individual. He surrendered, 
finally, to the American authorities, and shortly afterwards started 
the so-called Independent Catholic Church. 

The Chairman. And this man, who had the reputation of being a 
bloodthirsty individual, was the head of the Independent Catholic 
Church in the Philippine Islands? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. I might add that it was frequently re- 
ported that he was guilty of burying American soldiers alive if they 
fell into his hands as captives. 

The Chairman. Now, the possession of these churches by the Inde- 
pendent Catholic Church, at the head of which was Aglipay — this 
man who had the reputation of burying our soldiers alive — was what 



138 CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IJST PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

sort of possession? Was it by force; was it with the consent of the 
Catholic Church; was it with the consent of the American Govern- 
ment, or was it with the consent of any constituted authorities ? 

Colonel Hull. It was not with the consent of the Catholic Church ; 
neither was it with the direct consent of the American Government. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions, gentlemen? 

Mr. Jones. I would like to ask a question right there. Colonel 
Hull, is it not a fact that Secretary Taft, when he was governor of 
the Philippine Islands, issued an order that wherever the Aglipayans 
were in j)ossession of church property they should remain in posses- 
sion of that property, and that wherever representatives of the Roman 
Catholic Church Avere in possession they should remain in possession 
of the church property, quiet possession, until the dispirte between 
the two elements should be decided by the courts ? 

Colonel Hull. I have never read such instructions, but it is my 
impression that such were issued, especially in view of the policy 
pursued by the Government. 

Mr. Jones. There is no question on earth but that such an order 
was issued ; and, if it were issued, were not the Aglipaj^ans in lawful 
possession of this property under that order, if they were in posses- 
sion of it? 

Colonel Hull. My answer to that was, a short time ago, that it was 
with the passive consent of the government that they took possession. 

Mr. Jones. Yes ; but I was afraid that your answer and the chair- 
man's question there might 

Colonel Hull. As I understand the JDolicy of the government out 
there, this was a question that was properly one for the courts; that 
the authorities would not consider it as an administrative measure 
'and place one or the other in possession of the churches. They would 
leave them as they found them. 

Mr. Jones. I know that Secretary Taft testified about that him- 
self last winter. I ^lave a copy of his testimony here. There is no 
question on earth 

The Chairman. Suppose we were to grant that, mj question was 
this 

Mr. Jones. I was afraid that it would convey an improper im- 
pression. 

Mr. FoRNES. In the calculation of these claims, did the question 
of the possession of this property by the Independent Catholic Church 
have any effect as to the result in arriving at the amount allowed ? 

Colonel Hull. No such question was considered by the board on 
church claims, and the question does not figure in the report that 
we are now discussing. 

Mr. Helm. There must have been some conflict of claims between 
the regular church and this independent church. Now, in some 
States and under some jurisdictions, if that possession was adverse 
to the legal title of the holder and continued adverse — at least, in 
our State — for fifteen years, then the person claiming adverse pos- 
session and in adverse possession for fifteen years acquires title. Does 
that condition prevail anywhere along the line in any of these claims? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir; ten years' hostile possession is the law in 
the Philippines now. 

Mr. Olmsted. You mean that ten years gives a prima facie title. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, under Act No. 190 o'f the Philippine Commis- 
sion. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IK PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 139' 

Mr. Helm. Has any of this property which is included in that upon 
which the award of the board was made been in tlie possession of this 
Independent Catholic Church for ten years or longer ? 

Colonel Hull. That would be impossible, because the Independent 
Church was not constituted until 1902. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions, gentlemen, on any 
other claim? 

Mr. Garrett. I want to ask Colonel Hull this question in view of 
the answer just given by him. At the time for which you made these 
awards, was there any Independent Church there? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. There was no Independent Church for the time that 
you made these awards? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. The organization of the Independent Church has all 
come since the time of our occupancy for which these awards were 
made? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; unless in one or two particular cases, 
where we have kept scouts ; but as a very general proposition, I should 
say that it was afterwards. 

The Chairman. During the time that these damages were inflicted, 
there was no Independent Catholic Church in the Philippines? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Helm. Perhaps it is a little bit apart from the Colonel's office, 
but it occurs to me, and I would like to ask him if it would be possi- 
ble out of abundant precautions that there would be an award made^ 
that a case could be prepared and presented to this Manila court, or 
to whatever court prevails over there, and have it adjudicated thor- 
oughly and completely as to whom this money should be paid? 
Could that be done ? Would it be possible ? 

Colonel Hull. For what purpose? What claims are you afraid 
of? 

Mr. Helm. There seems to have been some confusion or some mis- 
understanding as to who was the proper person in each instance to 
whom to pay this money. Could that not be all adjudicated or deter- 
mined conclusively by the court in a certain case? 

Colonel Hull. It could be determined conclusively by the War 
Department, without the necessity of an investigation by judicial 
process, by securing any necessary quittance of every legal authority 
of the Catholic Church. 

The Chairman. I think that I can ask a question which will clear 
up part of the doubt in your mind, Mr. Helm. Let me ask the Colonel 
this : Plas the Independent Catholic Church ever presented a demand 
for damages to any property mentioned in any of these claims ? 

Colonel Hull. No, sir ; and there is a document on record, secured 
from Aglipay by an officer whose name I do not now recall, stating 
that no such claims were contemplated. 

The Chairman. That being true, the only claimant who has asked 
compensation for damages on the property mentioned in your item- 
ized report is the Roman Catholic Church of the Philippine Islands ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir; of which there are only five owners — the 
bishops. 

Mr. Garrett. On the first day of the hearings I asked Colonel Hull 
two or three questions, the substance of which, all taken together, was 
whether the board had not allowed what it considered to be a reason- 



140 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHsTE ISLANDS. 

able rental or reasonable payment for actual use by troops of the 
United States acting under orders. Now, do I understand )^ou to say 
that the Independent Church was not organized prior to 1902? 

Colonel Hull. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Garrett. It was organized in that year ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garrett. Now, the great bulk of the claims which are made, 
and which are involved in your report, were claims for occupancy 
prior to 1902, when there was no schism in the church. Is that 
correct ? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And no independent church. 

Mr. Garrett. No Independent Church. 

Colonel Hull. That is correct. 

Mr. Garrett. I understand, from what you said a few moments 
ago, that probably there were some few claims subsequent to 1902. 

Colonel Hull. I will explain that 

Mr. Garrett. Just a moment. If that is correct and there are some 
claims subsequent to that, will you at your leisure designate those 
claims and put them into the report of the hearing here, in the state- 
ment here ? 

Colonel Hull. That would be very hard to do. They will be only 
a few in number where the occupancy extended for any length of 
time after the schism. Most of the occupancy — I should say in 99 
per cent of the claims — occurred before this division. Wliere we 
occupied the property later than that, it was due to the maintenance 
of scouts, or something like that. I can do it, but it would involve 
some time and a good deal of work. 

Mr. Davis. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Davis. 

Mr. Davis. Of what is the Independent Church composed ? 

Colonel Hull. Cfi what elements ? 

Mr. Davis. Of what population ; what peoples ? 

Colonel Hull. Ilocanos, Visayans, and Tagalogs. 

Mr. Davis. With regard to religious faith? 

Colonel Hull. All Catholics. 

Mr. Davis. Is it true, or not, that the Independent Catholic Church 
is composed of deserters, as it were, or offshoots of the previously 
existing Catholic churches? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Graham. What number? You indicated some time ago, I 
think, the probable number of them. 

Colonel Hull. No, sir ; I did not. Mr. Jones stated 3,000,000, but 
I have no fignires. I should say that that estimate is large. 

Mr. Davis. Then the members, generally speaking, of the present 
Independent Catholic Church were formerly members of, and be- 
longed to, the Roman Catholic Church. 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. That question is discussed somewhat in 
the statement of Bishop Daugherty. I have not read that statement 
in over a year, but I think that he discussed the Independent Church 
in his affidavit made to the board. 

Mr. Davis. The reasons for this dissension, or breaking away from 
the so-called " mother church," was not considered important by 
your board? 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 141 

Colonel Hull. No, sir. 

Mr. Dayis. Of no account whatever? 

Colonel Hull. Not from what I understand of our report. 

Mr. Davis. Except you did ascertain the manner and method, and 
the funds that were used in the construction of these churches? 

Colonel Hull. In some cases, but not in all cases. 

Mr. Davis. And you have stated the sources of revenue? 

Colonel Hull. I looked up that question somewhat when I was first 
in Manila. 

The Chairman. There is one suggestion that I want to make right 
there. Colonel. We have here a record of the testimony of the four 
bishops taken under oath before this board. I have been given per- 
mission to insert in the record of the hearings before this committee 
the testimony of Bishop Rooker, and I think it would be well to have 
also inserted in such record the sworn testimony of Bishop Daugh- 
erty, of Bishop Hendrick, and of Bishop Barlin — the three Ameri- 
can bishops ands the one Filipino bishop — on these claims. 

Mr. Jones. Are those all the bishops? 

Colonel Hull. Yes, sir. The Archbishop of Manila was absent. 

The Chairman. Is the committee willing to have that done? 

Mr. Jones. I hope that it will be done. 

CoNVENTO, Jaro, Iloilo, Decemliev 5, 1906. 

Statement of Right Rev. Frederick Z. Roolier, bishop of Jaro, after first being 
dTily sworn by the president : 

Q. Bishop, when did you first come to Jaro? — A. I came to Jaro on the 2d 
of November, 1903. 

Q. In the performance of your ecclesiastical duties you made visitations to 
most of your diocese? — ^A. Of fully two-thirds. 

Q. I would like to have a statement from you as to what you learned on 
these visitations relative to the inquiries we are now making pursuant to orders 
from the Secretary of War ; that is, with special reference to damages done to 
the Roman Catholic Church by insurgents or incident to war. — A. Well, I found 
in many of the parishes, first, that the American troops occupied and used 
church property consisting of residences and church buildings, and that such 
occupation caused to these buildings more than the damage by ordinary wear 
and tear. I found in very many places that the buildings were left by the 
troops in practically useless condition, and in very many other cases they were 
left in such a state that their further occupation for purpose of residence 
would necessitate repairs at great expense. I found that in some few cases 
the property, consisting of churches and convents, was totally destroyed by 
fire, ordered by Ainerican officers. I found that the general impression caused 
among the people was that enormous quantities of property, furniture, utensils, 
instruments, and vestments of worship were appropriated by the American 
troops. Whether or not this was what actually happened I can not tell, for 
I was not even present in the Philippine Islands, but the general impression is 
that such sacking took place. As to the value of these damages to church 
property I am in no position to give a better estimate than those that have 
already been presented in separate documents sworn to by witnesses present 
during the whole time. That the churches and ecclesiastical buildings were at 
one time of extraordinary value and beauty is evident from an inspection of 
what is left of them. That they are now in a miserable state of deterioration 
is also perfectly evident to the eye. That this deterioration has been caused 
by violent treatment and not by ordinary effects of time and weather and to 
lack of care is also perfectly evident. That the only violent cause which 
operated between the time the buildings were in a totally excellent condition 
and the time when they were found almost completely ruined was the- prosecu- 
tion of war is also an historical fact. Consequently I suppose the incident of 
the prosecution of war, the operations of the American troops, and possibly at 
the same time malicious destruction by the insurgents were the causes of the 
destruction. It is also absolutely sure that objects of very great value have 
been lost, and were lost during the time of the disturbance ; that some of these 



142 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

objects might be traced so that proof could be found of their possession by the 
American troops is certain — to calculate exactly how much the American troops 
directly confiscated of such property is simply an impossibility. I believe, 
however, that if the American Government desires to make compensation for 
the damages actually suffered by the Catholic Church in its property, during 
and directly on account of the insurrection and its suppression, the estimates 
already presented from this diocese will give the Government a fair and honest 
valuation upon which to base its compensation. 

I desire, however, to add to the claims already submitted one claim for 
!?^16,000 damage on account of the burning of the church and convento in the 
pueblo of Tangalan, province of Capiz, which destruction took place when the 
American official in charge ordered the burning of the entire pueblo. This 
claim was submitted, but was not accepted, because at that time it was under- 
stood that no claim for damage on account of necessary operation of war was 
to be admitted. I may say that I have visited personally the pueblo of Tan- 
galan, and I know that the church and convento were actually burned : that I 
have been informed by residents of the town who were there at the time, as 
well as by American military officers, that this pueblo was burned by order of 
the commanding officer. I will also add that the value of ?16,000 for the church 
and convento as they existed is absolutely reasonable, being a value based on 
the expense of constructing both buildings at the time of^their destruction, 
which expense at the present date would be largely increased. 

I. know of no instance in the entire diocese where the property damaged by 
military occupation or by the incidents of war has been repaired or restored. 
The economic condition of the people absolutely prevents them from contributing 
toward such reparation or restoration. They have been obliged to continue in 
their worship in burned churches as best they might, and the parish priests 
have been obliged to live as best tbey can in their practically destroyed con- 
ventos or to hire a room in small, contiguous houses. 

Even if the Government were to grant the claims of this diocese just as they 
stand, the condition of the church here would still remain very much deterio- 
rated in comparison with what it was before the war. The sums asked for would 
be insufficient to put the property back to its original condition. These amounts 
are calculated on the basis of damages actually done. Since then, as time has 
passed, the deterioration to the damaged buildings has increased month by- 
month. This subsequent deterioration has not been included in the claim's 
which have been presented. The repairs to-day would be much more than at 
time of damage. For example, if the claim made for damages in the parish of 
Maasin (case 369), a^iounting to ?=2,000, had been paid at the time they were 
made the amount would have restored the property to its original condition ; to- 
day that restoration would cost not less than f=] 0,000. 

Q. Recenly you caused contractors to look over the bishop's palace at Jaro? — 
A. I have. 

Q. Did you have any estimates made as to the cost of i-epairs? — A. I had four 
estimates made. 

Q. Will you state what they were? — A. The estimates ranged from ?25,000 
to ?=30,000. 

Bishop's Palace, Vigan, Luzon, 

Dcceivhcr 21, 1906. 

Statement of Right Rev. D. J. Daugherty, bishop of Vigan, after first being 
duljr sworn by the president : 

Q. Bishop, when did you first come to Yigan? — A. I arrived in Vigan Octo- 
ber 22, 1903. 

Q. In the performance of your ecclesiastical duties you made visitations to 
most of your diocese? — A. All except Nueva Viscaya and a few towns in Ilocos 
Norte. 

Q. I would like to have a statement from you as to what you learned on 
these visitations relative to the inquiries we are now making pursuant to the 
orders from the Secretary of War ; that is, with special reference to damage 
done to the Roman Catholic Church by insurgents or incident to war. — A. I 
learned that not only the direct damages considered, but the resultant damages 
are great. Formerly the church buildings were in a fine condition and one of 
the glories of the land ; now they soon will be complete ruins unless repaired 
at once, and as the parishes have no church funds there is an urgent necessity 
for a speedy appropriation by Congress to meet the just claims of the churches. 
I consider that the claims heretofore presented and those newly presented are 
not at all more than is just. In fact I know many instances where priests 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHsTE ISLANDS. 143 

abstained from presenting large claims for fear that Congress M'onld reject all. 
In the entire province of Ilocos Notre, where we have many chnrch properties 
of great value, there is only one town in which we have a priest and from 
which we have received a priest's report. For the other towns we have been 
obliged to call upon the actual, provincial treasurer in 1904, and the report he 
made gave an estimate of properties of about one-fifth what we considered just 
with regard to the rentals. The treasurer had no documents which to rely 
upon in making his report. In the entire province of Nueva Viscaya there was 
no Catholic priest at all, and we had to rely upon the local provincial treasurer 
to make a report, and in the foregoing we deem the estimate of the damages 
done less than we consider just. In several towns in far outlying parish dis- 
tricts, especially in the mountainous countries, we have no priests at present, 
and we are therefore unable to obtain reports. It is impossible for us to esti- 
mate the indirect loss caused by damages, whether necessary or wanton, by the 
soldiers. By this indirect loss I mean whatever damages have been caused by 
the excessive rains and the terrific hurricanes of this climate, which had an 
opportunity for destruction hj the removal of doors, windows, and by injury 
to roof and other parts of buildings. Furthermore, we have not reported any 
loss accruing to us from the fact that our religious services were suspended 
more or less by occupation of the buildings by United States troops, thereby 
curtailing the tisual income of the parishes. And further loss might be 
estimated in the impossibility of replacing, in many instances, what has 
been destroyed, at least without extraordinary expense, on account of the 
changed condition of affairs, and particularly on account of the advance in 
values, we can never expect to obtain first-class materials such as we obtained 
formerly, at least without quadrupling the former prices. In many instances 
our claims were either rejected or reduced because we were unable to specify 
the particular purpose or use by the soldiers of the materials destroyed. It is 
not necessary to remark that wanton damages were not allowed. I believe that 
without our buildings we will be unable to sustain religion, and that accord- 
ingly we will not be able to perform the services for the state that we desire 
and that we hope to perform. We believe that the Catholic Church here, tak- 
ing into consideration the past history and traditions of the Filipino people, can 
be of great assistance to the United States Government in furthering peace, 
prosperity, material progress, and education in this archipelago. More than 
two-thirds of the people are Roman Catholics, and as far as human discernment 
will allow one to judge, they will probably remain attached to the Catholic 
Church. Accordingly the American bishops in the Philippine Islands who 
were appointed by the Holy See at the request of the United States Government, 
feel that it is their duty to work hand in hand with the Government for the 
betterment of the people, and they hope the Government, on its part, will do all 
it can iji all justice to meet the reclamations of the church for damages caused 
since American occupation. With regard to this particular diocese over which 
I preside, it has been the scene of many militjiry operations, and has also 
suffered more than any other diocese by the aggressiveness of the so-called 
Aglipay or revolutionary power, and the bishop feels that in so far as he will 
be able to counteract and overcome the tendencies of this anti-American party 
he will be subserving the interest of the United States as much as that of the 
church. For, if the Aglipayans have gone into open schism and are fighting 
the church it is because the church stands for the only constituted authority 
in these islands. This diocese of Nueva Segovia has no diocesan fund and no 
sort of revenue whatsoever beyond the mere pittance that accrues to it from 
church administration, and the poverty of the people is at present so appalling 
that we can expect no help from them as they were never accustomed, as in the 
United States, to contribute direct to the church. 

It is needless to say that whatever Congress may appropriate to meet these 
claims shall be expended upon Philippine edifices and Filipino labor, and will 
contribute to alleviate the prevailing distress of this country. 

Bishop's Palace, Cebu, 

Decemher 8, 1906. 
Statement of Right Rev. Thomas A. Hendrick, bishop of Cebu, after first 
being duly sworn by the president : 

Q. Bishop, when did you first come to Cebu? — A. March 12, 1904. 
Q. In the performance of your ecclesiastical duties have you made visitations 
to all your diocese? — A. About nine-tenths. 

25765—08 10 



144 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Q. I would like to have a statement from you as to wliat you learned on these 
visitations relative to the inquiries we are now making pursuant to orders from 
the Secretary of War, that is with special reference to damages done to the 
Roman Catholic Church by insurgents or incident to war. — A. I will say that I 
have talked with, I think, nearly every rector in this diocese concerning these 
matters, and with many of the principal men in each pueblo where loss was 
suffered, also with Americans who took part in military service, either as 
officers or as privates, and my judgments are based on these interviews. In 
general, this diocese was the most peaceful part of the islands, as the natives, 
Visayans, are by nature the most peaceful of all the different kinds of Fili- 
pinos, and besides were on the best relations with their civil and ecclesiastical 
superiors. The diocese is the largest in point of population of all in the 
islands, containing about 1,930,000 Catholics. Cebu Province is the most densely 
populated, containing about 700,000 souls, next in order coming Leyte, Samar, 
the provinces of Bohol, Siirigao, and Misamis, the latter two being in northern 
Mindanao. 

Some damages were done in Mindanao, Bohol, and Cebu, but relatively speak- 
ing less than in Leyte, and much less than in Samar, which was almost com- 
pletely destroyed during the war and the disturbances that followed up to the 
present time. 

The churches of the diocese were, at the time of American occupation of three 
kinds, first, solid stone, large and beautiful churches; second, part .stone and 
part wood ; or third, stone foundations with wood timbers and bamboo plastered 
walls, called pampanga. 

The greatest loss we suffered was in one church in Hilongos, Leyte. This 
was a fortified church, so made as a place of refuge against the forays of the 
Moros. The American troops after occupying this magnificent church and prop- 
erty for two months, and the convento, without molestation, set it on fire, and 
it and the convento were burned, together with the whole town, before the 
Americans marched out. This was done by a battalion of volunteers, I believe 
from Tennessee, and I also believe by order of their officers, the latter believing, 
I suppose, that the property might be used as a fort by the insurgents. All 
the better class of churches, such as this, were exceedingly rich in silver and 
gold plate, amounting in value to perhaps one-half of the value of the building. 
This church, in particular, was rich in silver altars, candelabra torches, water 
stoups, and rich vestments, all of which disappeared with the American troops. 
A few gold chalices and other vessels were carried into the mountains on the 
approach of the American troops. About two-thirds of the parish churches 
were of this stone construction. A beautiful stone church was destroyed by 
the Americans in Borongan, Samar, and in other places, which are particularly 
mentioned in our claims. 

As regards loot, let me say about the silver altars that nearly every parish 
church contained at least one, the altar, reredos, and upper construction being 
covered with silver plate about one-sixteenth to one thirty-second of an inch 
in thickness. These altars were from 10 to 20 feet high. The candlesticks, 
water stoups, torches, and other furniture being of solid silver. The chalices 
and other altar furniture were mostly of solid silver, in a small proportion, 
say 10 per cent in value, of solid gold. There were besides large silver sanctu- 
ary lamps, silver altar cards, and silver frames for altar cards. Great quan- 
tities of these valuables disappeared with the American troops. In a majority 
of the churches of the diocese there was no priest in charge, owing to the de- 
parture of the friars, and for other reasons, at the time of the occupation by 
the American troops. The American troops often occupied these churches as 
barracks, and this leads to the inference that they took the missing property. 
This is confirmed by the statement of American officers to me, that they had 
discovered such thefts, and, of course, enforced restitution. I wish to say here 
that the American officers, I may say almost without exception, did well in 
protecting Catholic Church property, and, in general, I lay no blame to them. 
Where the priest was present during the occupation, I find no losses. 

Samar comes in a class by itself. In general the insurrectos respected church 
property, excepting that they levied on the moneys of the church wherever they 
found it, all through the diocese. They did not burn churches or conventos, or 
loot. Samar is the exception. Between the American troops and the insur- 
rectos, this province was reduced to desolation, and not more than five or six- 
churches and conventos left in the whole province. The most of the damage 
was done by the insurrectos and ladrones, but a considerable portion by Amer- 
icans. The most of the damage done also under the dominion of the civil 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



145 



government. This government instituted five kinds of peace officers. For con- 
venience sake I include the Regular Army, as their function in time of peace 
was not to do vpar duty. 

First, the regular army ; second, the scouts ; third, the constabulary ; fourth, 
the municipal police ; fifth, the native volunteers, armed with pikes only. These 
five bodies were ruled by no common authority, and consequently never acted 
in concert or for mutual support. The instituting of this system of policing 
was a grave mistake. It resulted in an enormous waste of money and lives, 
without any visible compensating results, as the condition of this province was 
worse in 1905, when Governor Curry took charge, than at any time since 
Spanish occupation. The fact that Governor Curry has brought about peace, 
and has almost extinguished the outlaw element, shows that it might have been 
done five years before. Governor Curry, before accepting this difficult charge, 
demanded and received, as a condition, the support of all classes of the police 
service, and the great results accomplished under his care have been done 
with less expense and still less loss of life. During the time before he came 
some of the towns were burnt four or five times, many more two and three 
times. My contention from all this is that the United States might have pro- 
tected life and property in this island and did not do it, leaving the ruling of 
the island to less than twenty outlaws. For this reason it is responsible for 
these losses. 

In conclusion, I wish to say that these losses are being daily increased by 
the delay in considering and auditing them. We have no diocesan fund. There 
is no fund elsewhere in the world from which we may draw. The priests and 
bishops have no salaries. 

Where churches have been destroyed the people are worshiping in huts made 
of bamboo and grass, hoping for some help from elsewhere. The people are 
exceedingly poor everywhere. 

Owing to the difficulties of interisland transportation, it sometimes requires 
a year to get replies from letters. For this reason some claims are here pre- 
sented which were not presented before. 

I have mentioned here damages done by insurrectos, not because I believe 
that the United States is chargeable for them, but for consideration as showing 
our helplessness. 

JSTtJEVA Caceres, Decemlyer 15, 1906. 
Lieut. Col. John A. Hull, * 

President of the Board on Church Claims, Manila, P. I. 
Sir : In accordance with the wishes of the board, I have the honor to submit 
the following detailed list of claims of the diocese of Neuva Caceres which were 
not included in the proceedings of recommendations of the board, or if included 
were entirely denied : 



Pueblo . 



1 Lupi 

2 Ragay 

3 Sipoeot 

4 Bosainga 

5 OastoUa 

6 Matnog 

7 Masbate 

8 Pilar 

9 Macalelon 

10 Jovellar 

11 Pandan 

12 Bula 

13 Indan 

14 Labo 

15 Libmanan 

16 Capalonga 

17 Mangniring: 

18 Minalabag 

19 Pamplona 

20 Bulusan 

21 Bacon 

22 Alabat 

23 Dolores 

24 Guinayangan. 



Ambos Oamarines- 
.do_ 
.do. 



Sorsogon. 

do 

do 

do 

do 

Tayabas-- 

Albay 

do 



Ambos Camarines- 

do 

do 



-do. 
-do. 
-do- 
.do. 
.do. 



Sorsogon. 

do 

Tayabas.- 

do 

do 



Amount 
claimed. 



Pll 

38, 

5. 

11. 



11 
144^ 
12, 



,000.00 
000.00 
000.00 
34.5.00 
58.f).00 
300.00 
550.00 
000.00 
265.00 
829.00 
367.00 
500.00 
353.00 
974.2.5 
530.00 
450.00 
700.00 
705.00 
576.00 
745.00 
360.00 
101.46 
470.00 



146 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 



See details on table herewith inclosed. 

In the first place, I wish to call yonr attention to the important fact that 
wherever a claim is made for building burned, belonging to the Roman Cutholic 
Church and situated in the above-mentioned pueblos, it is exclusively due to 
acts of the American troops and never to the insurgents, w^ho, true ••nough, 
burned some of the churches and parish houses during the past insurrection 
against the Government of the United States, such as the churches at Cana- 
man and Magarao, in the province of Cambos Camarines, and that of (7uino- 
batan in the province of Albay, all of which is set forth in detail on a separate 
list as part of this report, marked No. 2. 

By considering the fact that the price of labor has increased to three times 
the amount formerly paid to laborers, the high price of the materials used in 
the construction of similar buildings, the more or less large amount of time 
necessary to begin and carry out this class of works, and the expenses con- 
nected therewith, the board can easily see that the amounts claiuaed for the 
burning of the building is the most moderate that could be asked. In former 
times when agriculture, the source of wealth of this province, was urospe- ous, 
the people helped the parish priest according to their means, some contributed 
money, some rice, and others labor, or gratuitous services of all kinds con- 
nected with the churches and convents; but unfortunately nothing of this 
nature can be looked forward to at the present time, owing to the poor state 
in which the province finds itself on account of the calamities by which it Jias 
been afflicted, such as rinderpest, invasion by locusts, and drought to such an 
extent that the people can scarcely make a living, and consequently the Carbolic 
Church of this diocese is reduced to the most deplorable situatioii that can be 
imagined. The poverty and want of many of the churches is increasing every 
year more and more, so much so that some of the priests are forced to borrow 
ornaments from other churches in order to celebrate the religious ceremonies 
any way decently. This is easy to understand, if we consider that the eco- 
nomic condition of the churches in the present circumstances is entirely de- 
pendent on the people for subsistence, while, during better times, the Spanish 
Government by the concordat of 1851, and the convention of 1859, bound itself 
to gratuitously, and strictly according to justice, support the parish priests and 
pay the expense of the cult. 

Allow me to outline the following comparative table : 



T'rovinco. 



Amount 
claimed. 



Amount rec- 
ommended. 



Albay 

Ambos Oamarines 

Sorsogon 

Tayabas 

Total 



PI 41, 068. 00 

212,194.22 

216,065.00 

61,677.90 



631,005.12 



P22,935.00 
57,009.00 
11,165.00 
25,515.00 



116,624.00 



There being a difference of P514,381.12. 



If we distribute the amounts recommended by the board in equal parts among 
the pueblos having claims in each province there would fall to each pueblo 
an average of 1P3,000. This figure shows the small amount that the Govern- 
ment of the United States, which I have always firmly believed and hoped 
would willingly increase it, owing to its proverbial generosity, can allow us. 

Three thousand pesos would not even be sufficient to equip and furnish a 
church decently. It is enough to say that according to church laws and rules, 
we are required to use ornaments of five different colors, viz : White, red, violet, 
black, and green, with their respective adherents, such as stoles, maniples, 
veil chalices, etc., which are always of silk or goods of greater value, never 
of coarse textures, and if we add to these the retablos, tabernacles, and many 
other things required by the Eoman Catholic cult, it is easy to understand how 
expensive it is to even modestly provide ornament for each church. 

Before closing, I beg the board's permission to make the following remarks : 

First. During the short-lived Filipino Republic, certain officers, countrymen 
of mine, in compliance with orders received from Sr. Emilio Aguinaldo, seized 
the funds of most of the parishes of this bishopric as a forcible loan, which 
was never recovered, nor is there any chance of its ever being recovered. 

Second. Therefore this diocese has been in a critical financial situation these 
last eight years, the result of which is that many of the churches and parish 



CATHOLIC OHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTE ISLANDS. 147 

houses are in a ruinous state and others were destroyed by the typhoon or fire, 
and until this date we have been unable to rebuild them, in spite of our earnest 
desire to do so. 

Third. The lack of churches in the Philippine pueblos and in the remote 
barrios where the people can congregate on Sundays and holy days is the most 
doleful thing for the natives, who hold in their hearts the dearest affection to 
the Catholic religion, which they profess. 

Fourth. The most urgent repairs to many of the church buildings heretofore 
made were effected by means of loans on which an interest of 6 per cent, at 
least, must be paid ; by this you can perfectly understand that the condition of 
this diocese is getting worse every year that the payment of our claim is de- 
layed. 

Fifth. The rebuilding of the church at Guinobatan, province of Albany, is, in 
my humble opinion, a convincing proof of the enormous expenses that will be 
caused to the Roman Church in analogous cases. The repairing of the said 
church of Guinobatan, which walls were not damaged by the fire when burned 
by the insurgents, has cost about $100,000, and this could not haA^e been done 
had it not been for the praiseworthy efforts of the parish priest of the said 
pueblo, assisted by the liberal contributions of the inhabitants. 

Sixth. Finally, if the board, of which you are the worthy president, can not 
reopen the cases previously considered, none of the amounts recommended by 
the first board being susceptible of increase, I beg to submit for the considera- 
tion of the new board the accompanying statements of identical damages done 
by the insurgents during the past insurrection against the Government of the 
United States. 

In view of the foregoing considerations, I again beg the board, in my own 
name and in the name of all the parishes of this diocese, to recommend to the 
honorable Secretary of War to kindly grant us, at the least, two-thirds of the 
amount represented in the above-mentioned claims, which, added to the amounts 
previously recommended by the board, would be a base for the realization of 
our project of rebuilding little by little the ruinous buildings and repair those 
that threaten ruin, and to provide a decent ornamentation for the churches 
most in need of it. This is all I have to say to the board in representation of 
the interests of this diocese, etc. 
Very respectfully, 

(Sgd.) Jorge Baelin, 

Bishop of Nueva Caceres. 

The Chairman. Does any member of the committee desire to elicit 
any further statement of facts from Colonel Hull bearing on any of 
these claims. Do you, Mr. Denver, Mr. Fornes, Mr. Helm, Mr. 
Jones, Mr. Garrett, Mr. Olmsted, Mr. Graham, Mr. Davis, Mr. Page ? 

Mr. Jones. I want to ask just one question, to be put in the record. 
Just let me ask that one question. 

I notice on page 31 of your report, " Claim No. 394, Lagonoy." 
Is that the church property that was the subject of controversy in the 
case which went up to the supreme court and was decided by the 
supreme court? 

Colonel Hull. It is my belief that it is the same. 

The Chairman. Now, gentlemen, with your permission, right here 
I will read the syllabus of the opinion of the supreme court of the 
Philippine Islands on this Lagonoy case, and then ask permission to 
print both opinions in full in the record. The case is found in vol- 
iime 7 of the Eeports of the Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands. 



148 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IIST PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

(At this point the chairman read to the committee the syllabus of 
the opinion. The following is the complete opinions:) 

[No. 2832. November 24, 1906.] 

The United States of America. In the supreme court of the 

Philippine Islands. 

Eev. Jorge Barlin, in his capacity as apostolic administrator of 
this vacant bishopric and legal representative of the general interests 
of the Homan Catholic Apostolic Church in the diocese of Nueva 
Caceres, plaintiff and appellee, v. P. Vicente Ramirez, ex-rector of 
the Roman Catholic Apostolic Parochial Church of Lagonoy, and the 
Municipality of Lagonoy, defendants and appellant. 

1. Church buildings ; possession ; administration ; estoppel. 

1. In an action brouglit by the Roman Catholic Church to recover a church 
building against a priest whom it has put in possession thereof to administer 
the same, the latter is estopped from alleging ownership at the time he took 
possession, either in himself or in a third person. 

2. Obispo de Cebu v. Mangaron, No. 1748, June 1, 1906, followed to the point 
that a person in possession of real estate who has been deprived of such pos- 
session can recover it unless the defendants can show a better right thereto. 

3. The government of the Philippine Islands has never undertaken to trans- 
fer to the municipalities the ownership or right of possession of the churches 
therein. 

4. Prior to the cession of the Philippines to the United States the King 
of Spain was not the owner of the consecrated churches therein and had no 
right to the possession thereof. The exclusive right to such possession was in 
the Roman Catholic Church, and such right has continued since such cession 
and now exists. 

5. The Roman Catholic Church is a juridical person in the Philippine Islands. 

Per Carson, J., concurring in the result : 

6. Church 'buildings; otvnersMp.- — The legal title to the state-constructed 
churches in the Philippine Islands is in the United States. 

7. Id.; usufruct. — Tie beneficial ownership of these churches is in the people 
of the Philippine Islands. 

8. Id.; possession and control. — The right to the possession and control of 
these churches is in the Roman Catholic Church so long as it continues to use 
them for the purposes for which they were dedicated. 

Appeal from a judgment of the court of first instance of Ambos 
Camarines. 

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 

Leoncio Imperial and Chicote, Miranda & Sierra, for the plaintiff 
and appellee. 

Manly & Gallup, for the defendants and appellants. 

WiLLARD, /..' There had been priests of the Roman Catholic 
Church in the pueblo of Lagonoy, in the Province of Ambos Cama- 
rines, since 1839. On the 13th of January, 1869, the church and 
convent were burned. They were rebuilt between 1870 and 1873. 
There was evidence that this was done by the order of the provincial 
governor. The labor necessary for this reconstruction was performed 
by the people of the pueblo under the direction of the cabezas de 
barangay. Under the law then in force, each man in the pueblo was 
required to work for the government, without compensation, for 
forty days every year. The time spent in the reconstruction of these 
buildings was counted as a part of the forty days. The material 
necessary was bought and paid for in part by the parish priest from 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 149 

the funds of the church and in part was donated by certain indi- 
viduals of the pueblo. After the completion of the church it was 
always administered, until November 14, 1902, by a priest of the 
Eoman Catholic Communion and all the people of the pueblo pro- 
fessed that faith and belonged to that church. 

The defendant, Ramirez, having been appointed, by the plaintiff, 
parish priest, took possession of the church on the 5th of July, 1901. 
He administered it as such under the orders of his superiors until 
the 14th day of November, 1902. His successor having been then 
appointed, the latter made a demand on this defendant for the de- 
livery to him of the church, convent, and cemetery, and the sacred 
ornaments, books, jewels, money, and other property of the church. 
The defendant, by a written document of that date, refused to make 
such delivery. That document is as follows : 

At 7 o'clock last night I received, through Father Agripino Pisino, your 
respected order of the 12th instant wherein I am advised of the appointment of 
Father Pisino as acting parish priest of this town, and directed to turn over 
to him this parish and to report to you at the vicarage. In reply thereto I 
have the honor to inform you that the town of Lagonoy, in conjunction with 
the parish priest thereof, has seen fit to sever connection with the Pope at 
Rome and his representatives in these islands and to join the Filipino Church, 
the head of which is at Manila. This resolution of the people was reduced to 
writing and triplicate copies made, of which I beg to inclose a copy herewith. 

For this reason I regret to inform you that I am unable to obey your said 
order by delivering to Father Agripino Pisino the parish property of Lagonoy 
which, as I understand it, is now outside of the control of the Pope and his 
representatives in these islands. May God guard you many years. 

Lagonoy, November 14, 1902. 

Vicente Ramirez. 

Rt. Rev. ViCAE OF THIS District. 

The document, a copy of which is referred to in this letter, is as 
follows : 

Lagonoy, November 9, 1902. 
The municipality of this town and some of its most prominent citizens, 
having learned through the papers from the capital of these islands of the 
constitution of the Filipino National Church, separate from the control of the 
Pope at Rome hj reason of the fact that the latter has refused to either recog- 
nize or grant the rights to the Filipino clergy, which have many times been 
urged, and it appearing to us that the reason ad^ anced why such offices should 
be given to the Filipino clergy are evidently well founded, we have deemed it 
advisable to consult with the parish priest of this town as to whether it 
would be advantageous to join the said Filipino Church and to separate from 
the control of the Pope as long as he continues to ignore the rights of the said 
Filipino clergy, under the conditions that there will be no change in the articles 
of faith, and that the sacraments and other dogmas will be recognized and par- 
ticularly that of the immaculate conception of the mother of our Lord. But 
the moment the Pope at Rome recognizes and grants the rights heretofore 
denied to the Filipino clergy we will return to his control. In view of this 
and subject to this condition, the reverend parish priest, together with the 
people of the town, unanimously join in declaring that from this date they sepa- 
rate themselves from the obedience and control of the Pope and join the 
Filipino National Church. This assembly and the reverend parish priest have 
accordingly adopted this resolution, written in triplicate, and resolved to send 
a copy thereof to the civil government of this province for its information, 
and do sign the same below. 

Vicente Ramirez, Francisco Israel, Ambrosio Bocon, Florentine 
Relloso, Macario P. Ledesma, Cecilio Obias, Balbino Imperial, Juan 
Preseiiada, Fernando Deudor, Mauricio Torres, Adriano Sabater. 

At the meeting at which the resolution spoken of in this document 
was adopted, there were present about 100 persons of the pueblo. 



150 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS TN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

There is testimony in the case that the population of the pueblo was 
at that time 9,000 and that all but 20 of the inhabitants were satis- 
fied with the action there taken. Although it is of no importance in the 
case, we are inclined to think that the testimony to this effect merely 
means that about 100 of the principal men of the town were in favor 
of the resolution and about 20 of such principal men were opposed 
to it. After the 14th of November, the defendant, Ramirez, continued 
in the possession of the church and other property and administered 
the same under the directions of his superior, the Obispo Maximo 
of the Independent Filipino Church. The rites and ceremonies and 
the manner of worship were the same after the 14th da}^ of November 
as they were before, but the relations between the Roman Catholic 
Church and the defendant had been entirely severed. 

In January, 1904, the plaintiff brought this action against the de- 
fendant, Ramirez, alleging in his amended complaint that the Roman 
Catholic Church was the owner of the church building, the convent, 
cemeter}^, the books, money, and other property belonging thereto, 
and asking that it be restored to the possession thereof and that the 
defendant render an account of the property which he had received 
and which was retained by him, and for other relief. 

The answer of the defendant, Ramirez, in addition to a general 
denial of the allegations of the complaint, admitted that he was in 
the possession and administration of the property described therein 
with the authority of the municipality of Lagonoy and of the inhab- 
itants of the same, who were the lawful owners of the said property. 
After this answer had been presented, and on the 1st day of Novem- 
ber, 1904, the municipality of Lagonoy filed a petition asking that 
it be allowed to intervene in the case and join with the defendant, 
Ramirez, as a defendant therein. This petition having been granted, 
the municipality on the 1st day of December filed an answer in which 
it alleged that the defendant, Ramirez, was in possession of the 
property described m the complaint under the authority and with 
the consent of the municipality of Lagonoy and that such munici- 
pality was the owner thereof. 

Plaintiff answered this complaint, or answer in intervention, and 
the case was tried and final judgment entered therein in favor of the 
plaintiff and against the defendants. The defendants then brought 
the case here by a bill of exceptions. 

That the person in the actual possession of the church and other 
property described in the complaint is the defendant, Ramirez, is 
plainly established by the evidence. It does not appear that the 
municipality, as a corporate body, ever took an}^ action in reference 
to this matter until they presented their petition for intervention in 
this case. In fact, the witnesses for the defense, when they speak of 
the ownership of the buildings, say they are owned by the people of 
the pueblo, and one witness, the president, said that the municipality 
as a corporation had nothing whatever to do with the matter. That 
the resolution adopted on the 14th of November, and which has been 
quoted above, was not the action of the municipality, as such, is 
apparent from an inspection thereof. 

The witnesses for the defense speak of a delivery of the church by 
the people of the pueblo to the defendant, Ramirez, but there is no 
evidence in the case of any such delivery. Their testimony in regard 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 151 

to the delivery always refers to the action taken on the 14th of No- 
vember, a record of which appears in the document above quoted. It 
is apparent that the action then taken consisted simply in separating 
themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, and nothing is said 
therein in reference to the material property then in the possession of 
the defendant, Ramirez. 

There are several grounds upon which this jurdgment must be 
affirmed : 

(1) As to the defendant, Ramirez, it appears that he took posses- 
sion of the property as the servant or agent of the plaintiff. The 
only right which he had to the possession at the time he took it was the 
right which was given to him by the plaintiff, and he took possession 
under the agreement to return that possession whenever it should be 
demanded of him. Under such circumstances he will not be allowed, 
when the return of such possession is demanded of him by the plain- 
tiff, to say that the plaintiff is not the owner of the property and is 
not entitled to have it, delivered back to him. The principle of law 
that a tenant can not deny his landlord's title, which is found in 
article 333, paragraph 2, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and also in 
the Spanish law, is applicable to a case of this kind. An answer of 
the defendant, Ramirez, in which he alleged that he himself was the 
owner of > the property at the time he received it from the plaintiff, 
or in which he alleged that the pueblo was the owner of the property 
at that time, would constitute no defense. There is no claim made by 
him that since the delivery of the possession of the property to him 
by the plaintiff he has acquired the title thereto by other means, 
nor does he in his own behalf make any claim whatever either to the 
property or to the possession thereof. 

(2) The municipality of Lagonoy, in its answer, claims, as such, 
to be the owner of the property. As we have said before, the evi- 
dence shows that it never was in the physical possession of the prop- 
erty. But waiving this point and assuming that the possession of 
Ramirez, which he alleges in his answer is the possession of the 
municijDality, gives the municipality the rights of a possessor, the 
question still arises. Who has the better right to the present posses- 
sion of the property ? The plaintiff, in 1902, had been in the lawful 
possession thereof for more than thirty years and during all that 
time its possession had never been questioned or disturbed. That 
possession has been taken away from it and it has the right now to 
recover the possession from the persons who have so deprived it of 
such possession, unless the latter can show that they have a better 
right thereto. This was the proposition which was discussed and 
settled in the case of the Bishop of Cebu v. Mangaron, No. 1748, 
decided June 1, 1906. That decision holds that as against one who 
has been in possession for the length of time the plaintiff has been in 
possession, and who has been deprived of his possession, and who can 
not produce any written evidence of title, the mere fact that the 
defendant is in possession does not entitle the defendant to retain that 
possession. In order that he may continue in possession, he must 
show a better right thereto. 

The evidence in this case does not show that the municipality has, 
as such, any right whatever in the property in question. It has pro- 
duced no evidence of ownership. Its claim of ownership) is rested in 



152 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

its brief in this court upon the following propositions : That the prop- 
erty in question belonged prior to the treaty of Paris to the Spanish 
Government; that by the treaty of Paris the ownership thereof 
passed to the Government of the United States ; that by article 12 of 
the act of Congress of Julj^ 1, 1902, such property was transferred 
to the government of the Philippine Islands, and that by the circular 
of that government, dated November 11, 1902, the ownership and the 
right to the possession of this property passed to the municipality of 
Lagonoy. If, for the purposes of the argument, we should admit 
that the other propositions are true, there is no evidence whatever to 
support the last proposition, namely, that the government of the 
Philippine Islands has transferred the ownership of this church to 
the municipality of Lagonoy. We have found no circular of the 
date above referred to. The one of February 10, 1903, which is 
probably the one intended, contains nothing that indicates any such 
transfer. As to the municipality of Lagonoy, therefore, it is very 
clear that it has neither title, ownership, nor right to possession. 

(3) We have said that it would have no such title or ownership 
even admitting that the Spanish Government was the owner of the 
property and that it passed by the treaty of Paris to the American 
Government. But this assumption is not true. As a matter of law, 
the Spanish Government at the time the treaty of peace was signed 
was not the owner of this property, nor of any other property like it 
situated in the Philippine Islands. 

It does not admit of doubt that from the earliest times the parish 
churches in the Philippine Islands were built by the Spanish Gov- 
ernment. Law 2, title 2, book 1, of the Compilation of the Laws of the 
Indies is, in part, as follows: 

Having erected all tlie churches, cathedrals, and parish houses of the Span- 
iards and natives of our Indian possessions from their discovery at the cost 
and expense of our royal treasury, and applied for their service and mainte- 
nance the part of the tithes belonging to us by apostolic concession according 
to the division we have^made. 

Law 3 of the same title relates to the construction of parochial 
churches such as the one in question. That law is as follows : 

The parish churches which may be erected in Spanish towns shall be of 
durable and decent construction. Their cost shall be divided and paid in three 
parts : One by our royal treasury, another by the residents and Indian euco- 
menderos of the place where such churches are constructed, and the other part 
by the Indians who abide there; and if within the limits of a city, village, or 
place there should be any Indians incorporated to our royal crown, we com- 
mand that for our part there be contributed the same amount as the residents 
and encomenderos, respectively, contribute ; and the residents who have no 
Indians shall also contribute for this purpose in accordance with their stations 
and wealth, and that which is so given shall be deducted from the share the 
Indians should pay. 

Law 11 of the same title is as follows : 

We command that the part of the tithes which belongs to the fund for the 
erection of churches shall be given to their superintendents to be expended for 
those things necessary for these chui'ches with the advice of the prelates and 
the officials, and by their warrants, and not otherwise. And we request and 
charge the archbishops and the bishops not to interfere in the collection and 
disbursement thereof, but to guard these structures. 

Law 4, title 3, book 6, is as follows : 

In all settlements, even though the Indians are few, there shall be erected 
a church where mass can be decently held, and it shall have a door with a 
key, notwithstanding the fact that it be subject to or separate from a parish. 



1 



1 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 15S 

Not only were all the parish churches in the Philippines erected 
by the King and under his direction, but it was made unlawful to 
erect a church without the license of the King. This provision is 
contained in Law 2, title 6, book 1, which is as follows: 

Whereas it is our inteutiou to erect, institute, found, and maintain all 
cathedrals, parish churches, monasteries, votive hospitals, churches, and reli- 
gious and pious establishments where they are necessai'y for the teaching, 
propagation, and preaching of the doctrine of our sacred Roman Catholic 
faith, and to aid to this effect with our royal treasury whenever possible, and 
to receive information of such places where they should be founded and are 
necesary, and the ecclesiastical patronage of all our Indies belonging to us : 

We command that there shall not be erected, instituted, founded, or main- 
tained any cathedral parish church, monastery, hospital, or votive churches, or 
other pious or religious establishment without our express permission, as is 
provided in Law 1, title 2, and Law 1, title 3, of this book, notwithstanding any 
permission heretofore given by our viceroy or other ministers, which in this 
respect we revoke and make null, void, and of no effect. 

By agreement at an early date between the Pope and the Crown 
of Spain, all tithes in the Indies were given by the former to the 
latter, and the disposition made by the King of the fund thus cre- 
ated is indicated by Law 1, title 16, book 1, which is as follows : 

Whereas the ecclesiastical tithes from the Indies belong to us by apostolic 
concessions of the supreme pontiffs, we command the officials of our royal 
treasury of those provinces to collect and cause to be collected all tithes due 
and to become due from the crops and flocks of the residents in the manner 
in which it has been the custom to pay the same, and from the tithes the 
churches shall be provided with competent persons of good character to serve 
them and with all ornaments and things which may be necessary for divine 
worship, to the end that these churches may be well served and equipped, and 
we shall be informed of the provisions made, it pertaining to the worship of 
God, our Lord; this order shall be observed where the contrary has not already 
been directed by us in connection with the erection of churches. 

That the condition of things existing by virtue of the Laws of the 
Indies was continued to the present time is indicated by the royal 
order of the 31st of January, 1856, and by the royal order of the 13th 
of August, 1876, both relating to the construction and repair of 
churches, there being authority for saying that the latter order was in 
force in the Philippines. 

This church, and other churches similarly situated in the Philip- 
pines, having been erected by the Spanish Government and under its 
direction, the next question to be considered is, To whom did these 
churches belong? 

Title 28 of the third Partida is devoted to the ownership of things, 
and after discussing what can be called public property and what can 
be called private property, speaks, in Law 12, of those things which 
are sacred, religious, or holy. That law is as follows: 

Law 12. — Ho%o sacred or religious things can not &e oicned lyy any person. — 
No sacred, religious, or holy thing, devoted to the service of God, can be the 
subject of ownership by any man, nor can it be considered as included in his 
property holdings. Although the priests may have such things in their pos- 
session, yet they are not the owners thereof. They hold them thus as guardians 
or servants, or because they have the care of the same and serve God in or 
with them. Hence they were allowed to take from the revenues of the church 
and lands what was reasonably necessary for their support; the balance, be- 
longing to God, was to be devoted to pious purposes, such as the feeding and 
clothing of the poor, the support of orphans, the marrying of poor virgins to 
prevent their becoming evil women because of their poverty, and for the re- 
demption of captives and the repairing of the churches, and the buying of 



154 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

chalices, clothing, books, and other things which they might be in need of, and 
other similar charitable purposes. 

And then taking up for consideration the first of the classes into 
which this law has divided these things, it defines in Law 13 conse- 
crated things. That law is as follows: 

Sacred things, we say, are those which are consecrated by the bishops, such 
as churches, the altars therein, crosses, chalices, censers, vestments, books, and 
all other things which are intended for the service of the church, and the title 
to these things can not be alienated, except in certain specific cases, as we have 
already shown in the first partida of this book by the laws dealing with this 
subject. We say further that even where a consecrated church is razed, the 
ground upon which it formerly stood shall always be consecrated ground. But 
if any consecrated church should fall into the hands of the enemies of our faith 
it shall there and then cease to be sacred as long as the enemy has it under 
control, although once recovered by the Christians, it will again become sacred, 
reverting to its condition before the enemy seized it and shall have all the 
rights and privileges formerly belonging to it. 

That the principles of the Partidas in reference to churches still 
exist is indicated by Sanchez Roman, whose work on the civil law 
contains the following statement: 

First group. Spiritual and corporeal or ecclesiastical. A. Spiritual. — From 
early times distinction has been made by authors and by law between things 
governed by divine law, called divine, and those governed by human law, called 
human, and although the former can not be the subject of civil, juridical rela- 
tions, their nature and species should be ascertained either to identify them 
and exclude them from such relations or because they furnish a complete ex- 
planation of the foregoing tabulated statement, or, finally, because the laws of 
the partidas deal with them. 

Divine things are those which are either directly or indirectly established by 
God for his service and sanctiflcation of men, and which are governed by divine 
or canonical laAvs. This makes it necessary to divide therQ into spiritual things, 
which are those which have a direct infinence on the religious redemption of 
man, such as the sacrament, prayers, fasts, indulgences, etc., and corporeal or 
ecclesiastical, which are those means more or less direct for the proper religious 
salvation of man. 

7. First group. Divirm things. B. Corporeal or ecclesiastical things {sacred, 
religious, holy, and temporal, helonging to the church). — Corporeal or ecclesi- 
astical things are so divided. 

(a) Sacred things are those devoted to God, religion, and worship in general, 
such as temples, altars, ornaments, etc. These things can not be alienated 
except for some pious purpose and in such cases as are provided for in the 
laws, according ito which their control pertains to the ecclesiastical authorities, 
and in so far as their use is concerned, to the believers and the clergy. (2 
Derecho Civil Espanol, Sanchez Roman, p. 480 ; S Manresa, Commentaries on 
the Spanish and Civil Code, p. 636 ; 3 Alcubilla, Diccionario de la Adminis- 
tracion Espanola, p. 486.) 

The Partidas defined minutely what things belonged to the public 
in general and what belonged to private persons. In the first gi'oup 
churches are not named. The present Civil Code declares in article 
338 that property is of public or private ownership. Article 339, 
which defines public property, is as follows: 

Property of public ownership is — 

1. That destined to the public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, 
ports, and bridges constructed by the State, and banks, shores, roadsteads, and 
that of a similar character. 

2. That belonging exclusively to the State without being for public use and 
which is destined to some public service, or to the development of the national 
wealth, such as walls, fortresses, and other works for the defense of the terri- 
tory, and mines, until their concession has been granted. 



i 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 155 

The code also defines the property of provinces and of pueblos, and 
in defining what property is of public use, article 344 declares as fol- 
lows : 

Property for public use in proAances and. in towns compromises the provincial 
and town i-oads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the prome- 
nades, and public works of general service supported by the said towns or 
provinces. 

All other property possessed by either is patrimonial, and shall be governed. 
by the provisions of this code, unless otherwise prescribed in special laws. 

It will be noticed that in neither one of these articles is any mention 
made of churches. When the Civil Code undertook to define those 
things in a pueblo which were for the common use of the inhabitants 
of the pueblo, or which belonged to the State, while it mentioned a 
great many other things, it did not mention churches. 

It has been said that article 25 of the Regulations for the Execu- 
tion of the Mortgage Law indicates that churches belong to the State 
and are public property. That article is as follows : 

There shall be excepted from the record required by article 2 of the law : 
First. Property which belongs exclusively to the eminent domain of the State,, 
and which is for the use of all, such as the shores of the sea, islands, rivers 
and their borders, wagon roads, and roads of all kinds, with the exception of 
railroads ; streets, parks, public promenades, and commons of towns, provided 
they are not lands of common profit to the inhabitants ; walls of cities and 
parks, ports, and roadsteads, and any other analogous property during the time 
they are in common and general use, always reserving the servitude established 
by law on the shores of the sea and borders of navigable rivers. 
Second. Public temples dedicated to the Catholic faith. 

A reading of this article shows that so far from proving that 
churches belong to the State and are for the use of all, it proves the 
contrary, for, if they had belonged to the State, they would have been 
included in the first paragraph instead of being placed in a paragraph 
by themselves. 

The truth is that, from the earliest times down to the cession of the 
Philippines to the United States, churches and other consecrated ob- 
jects were considered outside of the commerce of man. They were not 
public property, nor could they be subjects of private property in the 
sense that any private person could be the owner thereof. They con- 
stituted a kind of property the distinctive characteristic of which was 
that it was devoted to the worship of God. 

But, being material things, it was necessary that some one should 
have the care and custody of them and the administration thereof, and 
the question occurs. To whom, under the Spanish law, was intrusted 
that possession and administration ? For the purposes of the Spanish 
law there was only one religion. That was the religion professed by 
the Eoman Catholic Church. It was for the purposes of that religion 
and for the observance of its rites that this church and all other 
churches in the Philippines were erected. The possession of the 
churches, their care and custody, and the maintenance of religious 
worship therein were necessarily, therefore, intrusted to that body. 
It was, by virtue of the laws of Spain, the only body which could 
under any circumstances have possession of, or any control over, any 
church dedicated to the worship of God. By virtue of those laws this 
possession and right of control were necessarily exclusive. It is not 



156 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IE PHILIPPHSTE ISLANDS. 

necessary or important to give any name to this right of possession 
and control exercised by the Roman Catholic Church in the church 
buildings of the Philippines prior to 1898. It is not necessary to show 
that the church as a judicial person was owner of the buildings. It 
is sufficient to say that this right to the exclusive possession and con- 
trol of the same for the purposes of its creation existed. 

The right of patronage existing in the King of Spain with reference 
to the churches in the Philippines did not give him any right to inter- 
fere with the material possession of these buildings. 

Title 6 of book 1 of the Compilation of the Laws of the Indies treats 
of " Del Patronazgo Real de las Indians." There is nothing in a.i\j one 
of the fifty-one laws which compose this title which in any way indi- 
cates that the King of Spain was the owner of the churches in the 
Indies because he had constructed them. These laws relate to the 
right of presentation to ecclesiastical charges and offices. For ex- 
ample, Law 49 of the title commences as follows : 

Because the patronage aucl right of presentation of all archbishops, bishops, 
dignitaries, prebends, curates, and doctrines and all other benefices and 
ecclesiastical offices whatsoever belong to us, no other person can obtain or 
possess the sarae without our presentation as provided in Law 1 and other laws 
of this title. 

Title 15 of the first Partida treats of the right of patronage vesting 
in private persons, but there is nothing in any one of its fifteen laws 
which in any way indicates that the private patron is the owner of the 
church. 

Wlien it is said that this church never belonged to the Crown of 
Spain, it is not intended to say that the Government had no power 
over it. It may be that by virtue of that power of eminent domain 
which necessarily resides in every government, it might have appro- 
priated this church and other churches, and private property of indi- 
viduals. But nothing of this kind was ever attempted in the Philip- 
pines. 

It therefore follows that in 1898, and prior to the treaty of Paris, 
the Roman Catholic Church had by law the exclusive right to the pos- 
session of this church, and it had the legal right to administer the 
same for the purposes for which the building was consecrated. It 
was then in the full and peaceful possession of the church with the 
rights aforesaid. That these rights were fully protected by the 
treaty of Paris is very clear. That treaty, in article 8, provides, 
among other things, as follows: 

And it is hereby declared that the relinquishment or cession, as the case may 
be, to which the preceding paragraph refers, can not in any respect impair the 
property or rights which by law belong to the peaceful possession of property of 
all kinds, of provinces, municipalities, public or private establishments, ecclesi- 
astical or civic bodies, or any other associations having legal capacity to acquire 
and possess propei'ty in the aforesaid territories renounced or ceded, or of 
private individuals, of whatsoever nationality such individuals may be. 

It is not necessary, however, to invoke the provisions of that treaty. 
Neither the Government of the United States, nor the Government 
of these Islands, has ever attempted in any way to interfere with 
the rights which the Roman Catholic Church had in this building 
when Spanish sovereignty ceased in the Philippines. Any interfer- 
ence that has resulted has been caused by private individuals^ acting 
without any authority from the Government. Against such inter- 
ference by private persons with the rights of others redress is given 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPHSTB ISLANDS. 157 

in the courts of justice without reference to the provisions of the 
treaty of Paris. 

No point is made in the brief of the appellant that any distinction 
should be made between the church and the convent. The convent 
undoubtedly was annexed to the church and, as to it, the provisions 
of Law 19, title 2, book 1, of the Compilation of the Laws of the 
Indies would apply. That law is as follows : 

We command that the Indians of each to\A'^n or barrio shall construct such 
houses as may be deemed sufficient, in which the priests of such towns or barrios 
may live comfortably adjoining the parish church of the place where they may 
be built, for the benefit of the priests in charge of such churches and engaged 
in the education and conversion of their Indian parishioners, and they shall 
not be alienated or devoted to any other purpose. 

The evidence in this case makes no showing in regard to the ceme- 
tery. It is alwaj^s mentioned in connection with the church and 
convent, and no point is made by the appellant that if the plaintiff 
is entitled to recover the possession of the church and convent he is 
not also entitled to recover possession of the cemetery. So, without 
discussing the question as to whether the rules applicable to churches 
are in all respects applicable to cemeteries, we hold for the purpose 
of this case that the plaintiff has the same right to the cemetery that 
he has to the church. 

(4) It is suggested by the appellant that the Eoman Catholic 
Church has no legal personality in the Philippine Islands. This 
suggestion, made Avith reference to an institution which antedates 
by almost a thousand years any other personality in Europe, and 
which existed " when Grecian eloquence still flourished in Antioch, 
and when idols were still worshiped in the temple of Mecca," does 
not require serious consideration. In the preamble to the budget 
relating to ecclesiastical obligations, presented by Montero Rios to 
the Cortes on the 1st of October, 1871, speaking of the Roman Cath- 
olic Church, he saj^s: 

Persecuted as an unlawful association since the early days of its existence 
up to the time of Galieno, who was the first of the Roman emperors to admit 
it among the juridical entities protected by the laws of the Empire, it existed 
until then by the mercy and will of the faithful and depended for such existence 
upon pious gifts and offerings. Since the latter half of the third century, and 
more particularly since the year 313, when Constantine, by the edict of Milan, 
inaugurated an era of protection for the church, the latter gradually entered 
upon the exercise of such rights as were required for the acquisition, preserva- 
tion, and transmission of property the same as any other juridical entity under 
the laws of the Empire. (3 Dictionary of Spanish Administration, Alcubilla. 
p. 211. See also the royal order of the 4th of December, 1890, 3 Alcubilla, 189.) 

The judgment of the court below is aiSrmedj with the costs of this 
instance against the appellant. After the expiration of twenty days 
from rhe date hereof let judgment be entered in accordance herewith, 
and ten days thereafter the record will be remanded to the court 
below. So ordered. 

Arellano, C. J., Torres, Mapa, and Tracey, JJ., concur. 

Mr. Justice Johnson reserved his vote. 

Judgment affirmed. 

Carson, J., concurring: 

I am in entire accord with the majority of the- court as to the dispo- 
sition of this case, but I can not adopt the reasoning by which some 
of the conclusions appear to have been obtained, nor accept without 
reserve all of the propositions laid down in the majority opinion. 



158 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

Profoundly as I respect the judgment of my associates, and dis- 
trustful as I ought to be of my own, the transcendent importance of 
the issues involved seems to impose upon me the duty of writing a 
separate opinion and stating therein as clearly as may be the precise 
grounds upon which T base my assent and the reasons which forbid 
my acceptance of the majority opinion in its entirety. 

I accept the argument and authority of the opinion of the court in 
so far as it finds: That the Roman Catholic Church is a juridical 
entity in the Philippine Islands; that the defendant, Ramirez, can 
not and should not be permitted in this action to deny the plaintiff's 
right to the possession of the property in question, because he can 
not be heard to set up title thereto in himself or a third person, at 
least until he has first formally surrendered it to the plaintiff who 
intrusted it to his care ; that the municipality of Lagonoy has failed 
to show by evidence of record that it is or ever was in physical posses- 
sion of the property in question; and that the possession of the de- 
fendant, Ramirez, can not be relied upon as the possession of the 
municipality, because the same reason which estops Ramirez from 
denying the right of possession in the plaintiff estops any other person 
claiming possession through him from denying that right. I agree, 
furtheriuore, with the finding that the defendant municipality failed 
to establish a better right to the possession than the plaintiff in this 
action, because, claiming to be the owner by virtue of a grant from the 
Philippine government, it failed to establish the existence of such 
grant ; and because, furthermore, it Avas shown that the plaintiff or his 
predecessors had been in possession and control of the property in 
question for a long period of years prior to the treaty of Paris by 
lawful authority of the King of Spain, and that since the sovereignty 
of these islands has been transferred to the United States the new 
sovereign has never at anj time divested or attempted to divest the 
plaintiff of this possession and control. 

Thus far I am able to accept the reasoning of the majority opinion, 
and these propositions, supported as they are by the law and the evi- 
dence in this case, completely dispose of the question before us and 
establish the right of the plaintiff to a judgment for possession. 

I am not prepared, however, to give my assent to the proposition 
that prior to the treaty of Paris " The King of Spain was not the 
owner of the property in question nor of any other property like 
it situated in the Philippine Islands," and inferentially that the 
United States is not now the owner thereof and has no property rights 
therein other than, perhaps, the mere right of eminent domain. 

I decline to affirm this proposition, first, because it is not necessary 
in the decision of this case ; and second, because I am of opinion that, 
in the unlimited and unrestricted sense in which it is stated in the 
majority opinion, it is ' inaccurate and misleading, if not wholly 
erroneous. 

That it is not necessary for the proper disposition of this case will 
be apparent if we consider the purpose for which it is introduced in 
the argument and the proposition which it is intended to controvert. 
As stated in the majority opinion, the claim of ownership of the 
defendant municipality — 

is rested upon the follawing propositions : That the property in question be- 
longed, prior to the treaty of Paris, to the Spanish GoA^ernment ; that by the 
treaty of Paris the ownership thereof passed to the Government of the United 



CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 159 

States ; tliat by article 12 of the act of Congress of July 1, 1902, such property 
was transferred to the government of the Philippine Islands, and that by a 
circular of that government dated November 11, 1902, the ownership and the 
right to the possession of this property passed to the municipality of Lagonoy. 

It is evident that if any one of these propositions is successfully 
controverted, the defendants' claim of ownership must fall to the 
ground. The majority opinion finds (and I am in entire accord as 
to this finding) that neither the Government of the United States 
nor the Philippine government has ever made, or attempted to make, 
such transfer, and in making this finding it completely, conclusively, 
and finally disposes of defendants' claim of ownership. 

All the acts of the Government of the United States and of the 
present government of the Philippine Islands which can have any 
relation to the property in question are before us, and so short a period 
of years has elapsed since the transfer of the sovereignty of these 
Islands to the United States that it is possible to demonstrate with the 
utmost certainty that by no act of the United States or of the govern- 
ment of the Philippine Islands has the ownership and possession of 
this property been conferred upon the defendant municipality; it is 
a very different undertaking, however, to review the legislation of 
Spain for the three centuries of her Philippine occupation for the 
purpose of deciding the much-vexed quastion of the respective property 
rights of the Spanish sovereign and the Homan Catholic Church in 
State-constructed and State-aided churches in these Islands; and if 
I am correct in my contention that a holding that the " King of Spain 
was not," and, inferentially, that the Government of the United States 
is not, " the owner of this property or any other property like it 
situated in the Philippine Islands " is not necessary for the full, final,/ 
and complete determination of the case at bar, then I think that this 
court should refrain from making so momentous a finding in a case 
wherein the United States is not a party and has never had an oppor- 
tunity to be heard. 

But the mere fact that a finding that the King of Spain had no right 
of ownership in this property which could pass to the United States 
under the provisions of the treaty of Paris, is not necessary in my 
opinion for the disposition of the case at bar, would not impose upon 
me the duty of writing a separate opinion if it were in fact and at law 
a correct holding. I am convinced, however, that when stated without 
limitations or restrictions, as it appears in the majority opinion, it is 
inaccurate and misleading, and it may not be improper, therefore, to 
indicate briefly my reasons for doubting it. 

As stated in the majority opinion, " it does not admit of doubt that 
the parish churches in the Philippines were built by the Spanish 
Government," and it would seem therefore that prior to their dedica- 
tion the beneficial ownership, the legal title, the possession and control 
of all this property must be taken to have been vested in that Govern- 
ment. But it must be admitted that after this property was dedicated 
the ownership, in contemplation of Spanish law, was said to have 
been in God, and there can be no doubt that the physical possession 
and control of these churches for the purposes for which they were 
dedicated was given to the Roman Catholic Church — not, as I think, 
absolutely and conclusively, but limited by and subject to the royal 
patronage (patronato real) which included the right to intervene in 
25765—08 11 



160 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

the appointment of the rei:)resentatives of the church into whose hands 
the possession and control of the sacred edifices were to be intrusted. 
The anomalous status thus created might well have given rise to 
doubts and uncertainties as to the legal title and beneficial ownership 
of this property had not the grantor and the lawgiver of Spain ex- 
pressly and specifically provided that neither the Koman Catholic 
Church, nor an}^ other person, was or could become the owner thereof, 
and that all" these sacred edifices were to be regarded as beyond the 
commerce of men. 

No sacred, religious, or holy thiug, devoted to the service of God, can be 
the subject of ownership by any man, nor can it be considered as included 
in his property holdings. Although the priests may have such things in their 
possession, yet they are not the owners thereof. They hold them thus as 
guardians or servants, or because they have the care of the same and serve 
God in or with them. Hence they were allowed to take from the revenues of 
the church and lands what was reasonably necessary for their support; the 
balance, belonging to God, was to be devoted to pious purposes, such as the 
feeding and clothing of the poor, the support of orphans, the marrj'ing of poor 
virgins to prevent their becoming evil women because of their jjoverty; and 
for the redemption of captives and the repairing of the churches, and the buy- 
ing of chalices, clothing, books, and other things which they might be in need of, 
and other similar charitable pui-poses. (Law XII, Title 28, Third Partida.) 

It is difficult to determine, and still more difficult to state, the pre- 
cise meaning and legal effect of this disposition of the ownership, 
possession, and control of the parish churches in the Philippines; 
but since it was not possible for God, in any usual or ordinar}^ sense 
to take or hold, to enforce or to defend the legal title to this prop- 
erty, it would seem that a grant to Him by the King or the Gov- 
ernment of Spain could not suffice to convey to Him the legal title 
of the property set out in the grant, and the truth would seem to 
be that the treatment of this property in contemplation of Sj)anish 
law as the property of God was a mere arbitrary convention, the 
purpose and object of which was to crystallize the status of all such 
property in the peculiar and unusual mold in which it was cast at 
the time of its dedication. 

So long as church and state remained united and so long as the 
Eoman Catholic Church continued to be the church of the State, 
this convention served its purpose well; indeed, its very indefinite- 
ness seems to have aided in the accomplishment of the end for which 
it was adopted, and on a review of all the pertinent citations of Span- 
ish law which have been brought to my attention, I am satisfied that 
the status created by the above-cited Law XII of the Partidas con- 
tinued without substantial modification to the date of the transfer 
of sovereignty from the King of Spain to the United States. But 
this transfer of sovereignty, and the absolute severance of church 
and State which resulted therefrom, render it necessary to ascertain 
as definitely as may be the true meaning and intent of this conven- 
tional treatment of the parish churches in the Philippines as the 
property of God, and it is evident that for this purpose we must look 
to the substance rather than the form, and examine the intention of 
the grantor and the object he sought to attain, rather than the words 
and conventional terms whereby that intent was symbolically ex- 
pressed. 

It is not necessary to go beyond the citations of the majority 
opinion to see that the objects which the grantor sought to attain 
were, first, and chiefly, to advance the cause of religion among the 
people of the Philippine Islands and to provide for their religious 



CATHOLIC CHUKCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 161 

instruction and edification by furnishing tliem with parish churches 
suitable for the worship and glorification of God; second, to place 
those sacred edifices under the guardian care and custody of the 
church of the State; and, third, to deny to that church and to all 
others the right of ownership in the property thus dedicated; and 
since God could neither take nor hold the legal title to this property, 
the declaration of the King of Spain as set out in the above-cited 
law, that when dedicated these churches became in some peculiar and 
especial manner the property of God, was, in effect, no more than a 
solemn obligation imposed upon himself to hold them for the pur- 
poses for which they wete dedicated, and to exercise no right of 
property in them inconsistent therewith. 

This declaration that these churches are the property of God and 
the provisions which accompanied it, appear to me to_ be precisely 
equivalent to a declaration of trust by the grantor that he would 
hold the property as trustee for the use for which it was dedicated — 
that is, for the religious edification and enjoyment of the people of 
the Philippine Islands — and that he would give to the Roman 
Catholic Church the physical possession and control thereof, includ- 
ing the disposition of any funds arising therefrom, under certain 
stipulated conditions and for the purposes expressly provided by 
law. In other words, the people of the Philippine Islands became 
the beneficial owners of all such property, and the grantor continued 
to hold the legal title, in trust nevertheless to hold the property for 
the purposes for which it was dedicated and on the further trust to 
give the custody and control thereof to the Roman Catholic Church. 
If this interpretation of the meaning and intent of the convention of 
Spanish law which treated God as the owner of the parish churches 
of the Philippine Islands be correct, a holding that the King of 
Spain had no right of ownership in this property which could pass 
to the United States by virtue of the treaty of Paris can not be main- 
tained ; and it is to withhold my assent from this proposition that I 
have been compelled to write this separate opinion. 

For the purposes of this opinion it is not necessary, nor would it 
be profitable, to do more than indicate the line of reasoning which 
has led me to my conclusions, nor to discuss at length the question 
of ownerhip of this property, because whether it be held to be in 
abeyance or in God or in the Roman Catholic Church or in the 
United States it has been shown without deciding this question of 
ownership that the right to the possession for the purpose for which 
it was dedicated is in the Roman Catholic Church, and while the 
complaint in this action alleges that the Roman Catholic Church is 
the owner of the property in question, the prayer of the complaint 
is for the possession of this property of which it is alleged that 
church has been unlawfully deprived ; and because, furthermore, if I 
am correct in my contention that the legal title to the State- 
constructed churches in the Philippines passed to the United States 
by virtue of the treaty of Paris, it passed, nevertheless, subject to 
the trusts under which it was held prior thereto, and the United 
States can not at will repudiate the conditions of that trust and 
retain its place in the circle of civilized nations ; and as long as this 
property continues to be used for the purposes for Avhich it was 
dedicated, the Government of the United States has no lawful right 
to deprive the Roman Catholic Church of the possession and con- 



162 CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

trol thereof under the terms and conditions upon which that posses- 
sion and control were originally granted. 
Judgment affirmed. 

[No. 2842. November 24, 1906.] 

Tlie Romau Catholic Apostolic Church and Lorenzo Gregorio, plaintiffs and ap- 
pellees, V. Leonardo Santos et al., defendants and appellants. 

1. Church property ; possession and occupancy. — Barlin v. Ramirez, No. 2832, 
decided November 24, 1906, followed to the effect that the Roman Catholic 
Church is entitled to the possession of the church in controversy. 

2. Id.; id.; evidence. — Held, That the evidence in the case does not show the 
existence of a cofradia in which was vested the ownership of the property in 
question. 

3. Id.; id.; id. — The existence of an hermano mayor who had charge of the 
property is not sufficient to prove the existence of a cofradia. 

Appeal from a judgment of the court of First instance of Rizal. 
The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. 
Ledesma, Sumulong & Quintos, for appellants. 
Hartigan, Rhode & Gutierrez, for appellees. 

WiLLARD, /. : The plaintiffs brought this action to recover the pos- 
session of a chapel and the convent annexed thereto situated in the 
barrio of Concepcion, in the pueblo of Tanbobong, in the Province 
of Rizal. It is stated in a document presented by the defendants that 
a chapel had existed on this site for more than one hundred years. 
The court below made the folowing finding of fact : 

Tercero. Que desde tiempo immemorial hasta el ailo de 1902 dicha eapilla ha 
sido destiuada constantemente fi las ceremouias del culto de la religion Catolica 
Apostolica Romana habiendo sido invariables sacerdotes catolicos apostolicos 
I'omanos los unices que en ella decian misa y ejerclan el ministerio de la predi- 
cacion y la admiuistracion de los sacramentos del bautismo y de la confesion 
hasta el mes de diciembre de 1902 en que la comunion aglipayana celebros sus 
eultos en dicha visita y entro en posesion de la misma hasta la fecha. 

The evidence, as well of the plaintiffs as of the defendants, sup- 
ports the finding, aiKl there is no evidence whatever to the contrary. 

The buildings standing upon the site in question were destroyed 
by an earthquake in 1880 and their reconstruction was at once com- 
menced and completed within a few years. The work of reconstruc- 
tion was performed and the materials therefor fui'nished by the in- 
habitants of the barrio. One witness for the plantiffs. Bias Marcelo, 
describes in detail the manner of construction, specifying the names 
of the persons who contributed to the erection of particular parts of 
the buildings, and of persons who donated ornaments and other arti- 
cles for the use of the church. The witnesses for the defendants, with 
one exception, all stated, when asked who the owner of the chapel 
was, that it was owned by the people of the barrio. After its con- 
struction it was maintained and repairs were made thereon by the con- 
tributions of the Roman Catholics living in the barrio and pueblo. 
On the 26th of November, 1902, forcible possession of the chapel was 
taken by representatives of the Independent Filipino Church, and 
since that time worship therein has been in accordance with the rites 
of that church. '\'\Tiat proportion of the people of the barrio belong 
to the Independent Church and what proportion belong to the Roman 
Catholic Church does not appear. There was, however, presented 
in evidence by the plaintiffs a document signed by 131 persons, in 
which they stated that their desire was that the chapel should be 
used for the purposes of the religion professed by the Roman Catholic 
Church. 



CATHOLIC CHURCH CLAIMS IN" PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 168 

That this building is a church, is consecrated as such, and was used, 
occupied, and possessed by the Roman Catholic Church, as a corpora- 
tion, from the earliest times down 'to November, 1902, is clearly estab- 
lished by the evidence. This case is therefore ruled by what has been 
decided in the case of Barlin v. Ramirez (5 Off. Gaz., 130). To the 
authorities mentioned in that case may be added the following state- 
ment by the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the 
Mormon Church v. The United States (136 U. S., at p. 53) : 

By the Spanish law, whatever was given to the service of God became inca- 
pable of private ownership, being held by the clergy as guardians or trustees ; 
and any part not required for their own support, and the repairs, books, and 
furniture of the church, was devoted to works of piety, such as feeding and 
clothing the poor, supporting orphans, marrying poor virgins, redeeming cap- 
tives, and the like. (Partida 3, tit. 28, 11, 12-15.) When the property was given 
for a particular object, as a church, a hospital, a convent, or a community, etc., 
and the object failed, the property did not revert to the donor or his heirs, but 
devolved to the Crown, the church, or other convent community, unless the 
donation contained an express condition in writing to the contrary. (Tapia, 
Febrero Novisimo, lib. 2, tit. 4, cap. 24-26.) 

It follows that the Roman Catholic Church is entitled to the exclu- 
sive possession and occupancy of the property mentioned in the 
complaint. 

The principal claim set up by the defense in its brief is that there 
existed, and still exists, in the barrio of Concepcion a cofradia; that 
this confradia was and is a juridical entity; that is constructed this 
church building and convent, has always had the possession thereof, 
and has always been and now is the owner thereof, and that among 
the defendants in this section is the hermano mayor, an officer of the 
.cofradia, who is charged with the administration of its affairs. 

The proof does not sustain this claim. No evidence of any kind 
was presented to show the formation of this alleged cofradia in the 
manner pointed out by the laws existing prior to the treaty of Paris. 
No document setting forth the organization of the cofradia or its 
purposes or objects was introduced, nor does the parol evidence pre- 
sented at the trial show any of these things. A great many witnesses 
were examined both for the plaintiffs and for the defendants. With 
the exception of Angel Luna, the last witness for the defense, no one 
of them mentions the existence of this cofradia. Several of them 
were asked if there existed a cofradia or hermandad among the un- 
baptized Chinese in the town, but no one of the witnesses, even of 
the defendants, with the exception of Luna, testified to the exist- 
ence of a cofradia such as is referred to in the brief of the appellants. 
The last witness presented by the defendants. Angel Luna, made use 
of the word " confradia." The following questions were asked him 
and the following answers were given by him in reference thereto : 

A. iQue es lo quo constituye esa cofradia que V. dice? — T. Creo que es la 
reunion de los vecinos entre ellos los hermanos mayores que son los que tienen 
la representacion de los del barrio. 

A. iQue fundameuto tiene V. para creer que esos representan los intereses 
del barrio de la Concepcion? — T. Porque son los que me han nombrado hermano 
mayor. 

A. iQuienes eran los que le han nombrado a V. heramno mayor? — T. Don 
Martin Esguerra, Manuel Tuason, Lino Paez, y varios vecinos que no puedo 
mencionarlos in este momento, mas 6 menos cincueuta vecinos, todos del 
barrio de la Concepcion tomaron parte en la junta que me eligio en los cuales 
firmarou en el acto de mi nombramieuto que no lo he traldo aqui pero lo tengo 
en mi casa. 

A. lY a esta junta llama V. la cofradia el barrio de la Concepcion? — T. SI 
sejaor. 



164 CATHOLIC CHUECH CLAIMS IN PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. 

The memorandum to which he refers is dated the 2d day of 
October, 1902. It recites, among other things, that the church and 
convent were erected by the hermanos mayores or cofradia, but it 
will be noticed that this document was drawn up in October, 1902, 
after difficulties had arisen between the Eoman Catholic Church, 
and its recitals are therefore entitled to no weight. The evidence 
does not show that there ever existed in the barrio any such organi- 
zation as a cofradia. 

All of the witnesses, however, both of the plaintiffs and of the de- 
fendants, testified that there was a person called the hermano maj^or 
(eldest brother) and that he was charged with the supervision of 
the building, keeping the keys thereof, the collection of the contri- 
butions, the making of repairs, and the arrangements for the cele- 
bration of the fiesta of the barrio. As to the way in which he was 
elected the witnesses differ. Some of the witnesses for the de- 
fendants say he was elected by the people of the barrio ; others that 
he was elected by the ex-hermanos mayores ; others that he was elected 
by the principal contributors to the maintenance of the church ; but 
in whatever way he was elected, it is very apparent from the evi- 
dence that the existence of such a functionary in no way proves the 
existence of a juridical entity, such as a cofradia, in which was based 
the legal title to this property. He was rather the representative 
of the barrio than the representative of a cofradia ; in fact many of 
the witnesses for the witnesses testified that the church Avas owned 
by the barrio, represented by the hermano mayor. The necessity for 
some such person is apparent when it is considered that these build- 
ings constituted a vista or hermita which had no resident priest. 
From time immemorial the vista or chapel had been administered 
by the parish priest of Tambobong, who did not reside, of course, in 
the barrio. There being no resident priest, it was necessary that 
some person resident in the barrio should be charged with the care 
of the buildings and in this case that person was called the hermano 
mayor. 

The defendants in their answer set up the defense of res adjudicata, 
and alleged that in a former suit between the same parties concerning 
the possession of these buildings a final judgment had been rendered 
in favor of the defendants, which still remained in force. At the trial, 
however, they offered no evidence in support of these allegations of 
their answer. 

The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this 
instance against the defendants. 

After the expiration of twenty days let judgment be entered in ac- 
cordance herewith and ten days thereafter let the record be remanded 
to the court below for proper action. So ordered. 

Arellano, C. J. Torres, Mapa, Carson, and Tracey, J. J., concur. 

Johnson, J., reserves his vote. 

Judgment affirmed. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, we will begin the final consideration of 
this proposition on Monday next at 10 o'clock a. m. I hope that the 
members of the committee will be here as promptly as possible. 

(At this point the committee adjourned until 10 o'clock a. m. of 
Monday, January 27, 1908.) ^ 



M 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date; March 2003 

PreservationTechnologie 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATIOI 

1 1 1 Thomson Part< Drive 
Cranberry Township. PA 1 6066 
(724)779-2111 



